Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCE

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in his discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the possibility of establishing uniform rates of pay and allowances for national contingents serving in United Nations peace-keeping forces.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The British delegation in New York have discussed this question with the United Nations Secretariat. The Secretariat has pointed out to us that the policy of establishing uniform rates of pay and allowances would inevitably lead to a levelling up of the pay and allowances of all contingents, as at present fixed by their Governments, to that of the highest-paid contingent. If the cost of this were to be borne by United Nations funds this would clearly add very considerably to the cost of United Nations peace-keeping operations. It would not seem to be a practical proposition in the present state of United Nations finances.

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating those difficulties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that if these secondary problems, which often cause disproportionate irritation, could be dealt with, it might make it easier to build up gradually a regular peacekeeping force on a voluntary basis, perhaps individually as well as nationally, instead of having to throw contingents together ad hoc every time?

Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Member that these are very important

considerations for the future, but at present there are these difficulties, and I think he appreciates them. I do not think that they can be overcome at present.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to the establishment of a permanent United Nations force; and what reply he has sent to them.

Mr. P. Thomas: My right hon. Friend has received from the Soviet Ambassador a copy of a Soviet Government Memorandum on measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in the safeguarding of international peace and security. This Memorandum has been circulated at the United Nations at the request of the Soviet representative as document S/5811. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The Soviet representative in New York has told his British and American colleagues that the Memorandum is a response to the proposals which they put to him in March. These were outlined to the House in my reply to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 13th April.
A reply was delivered by the British Ambassador in Moscow on 24th July. My right hon. Friend hopes to discuss this question during his visit to Moscow, and I should prefer not to say any more at present.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that Mr. Khrushchev has increasingly been showing a genuine desire for an East-West detente, and is not this proposal further evidence of it? Therefore, will the Foreign Secretary, during his talks in Moscow, show Mr. Khrushchev that we in this country are in favour of such a proposal and welcome the Soviet conversion to it, doing everything in his power to see that agreement is reached along these lines?

Mr. Thomas: I would prefer not to go into the merits of this proposal until my right hon. Friend had had a chance to discuss the matter with the Soviet Government.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that, at the spring meeting this year of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, proposals were agreed to by the Soviet Union representative which were very much in line with those which have now been circulated in New York? Does he agree that this is an immense advance on anything hitherto agreed by the Soviets, and will the right hon. Gentleman now press for a permanent United Nations force with a permanent staff for forward planning at the United Nations?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the House that we welcome Soviet interest in this important subject and hope that the Soviet Government will be prepared to elucidate further their own ideas and discuss the ideas which other member States have put forward in recent months in the light of experience of United Nations peace-keeping activities to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving the quarterly percentage rise and fall in the costs of administering the Foreign Services, taking January, 1952, as 100.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): No, Sir. The separation of administrative costs from the other costs of the Foreign Service would be unduly expensive of time and effort. Moreover, any comparison of costs would be misleading in view of the changes in the load and organisation of the Foreign Service since 1952.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman try to give some information without going to too much cost or trouble? I am anxious to find to what extent the Foreign Office has saved money since the Government came to power, because this was one of the promises that they made during the last election. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I should like to put to my constituents during the election period either proof that the Government have kept their promise or,

as I suspect, proof that this is another broken promise?

Mr. Mathew: The hon. Member will remember that I told him on 13th April that, apart from anything else, we have entered into diplomatic relations with no fewer than 22 additional countries since 1952 and the increase in staff in the Foreign Office has been only 39. I think that this is no mean achievement for a public Department.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the hon. Gentleman say what specific administrative economies have been carried out following the Plowden Report on Representational Services Overseas? In particular, have the Government accepted the recommendation that heads of missions should report annually on the work of their missions?

Mr. Mathew: Close attention is being paid to that part of the Plowden Report and every effort will be made to make every possible economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COUNTRIES (SALE OF ARMS)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will name the countries with whom Her Majesty's Government are currently negotiating for the sale of British military arms and equipment;

(2) if he will list the countries with which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to trade in military arms and equipment.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. A. Butler): There are certain countries, such as those of the Soviet bloc, Far Eastern Communist countries, and Cuba, to whom it is our policy not to supply arms. Requests from other countries are considered in the light of their political, economic and strategic implications. It is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to name the countries with whom they are negotiating the sale of arms and military equipment.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Office should not make clear the names of the countries to which the Government have no intention of supplying arms and the


names of the countries to which they have supplied arms, without necessarily giving the amounts provided, say in the last five years? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain further what are the most important principles to which the Government adhere when they are negotiating such sales? Are they political considerations or considerations as to what the arms are likely to be used for, or are they purely commercial considerations?

Mr. Butler: I gave in my original Answer a description of the countries—the Soviet bloc, Far Eastern Communist countries, and so forth—to which we do not supply arms. It must, therefore, be derived that the other countries are possible countries to which we should supply arms. When we consider the export of arms we take account of any likelihood of their being re-exported or needed for aggression, or for the subversion of other countries or against British or Commonwealth forces.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the frigates for India? Can he confirm or deny that the Indian High Commissioner here has made frequent representations to himself, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and that the Prime Minister should have known about this since he was involved in it? Was it because of British representations that the Indians broke off negotiations with Sweden for the supply of these frigates? Was it because it was represented to them by our Government that this would not be showing sufficient gratitude for the help which we gave India against China?

Mr. Butler: That is a question which will have to be put down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA

Rivonia Trial Sentences

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the fact that all those persons sentenced in the Rivonia trial have decided not to appeal and that Her Majesty's Government voted in the Security Council for a resolution urgently appealing to the South African Government to grant an immediate amnesty to

all the persons sentenced, what further steps Her Majesty's Government have taken or propose to take to secure the release of those persons pursuant to the resolution of the Security Council;

(2) what reply he has sent to the letter from the Aberdeen Trades Council sent to him by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North about the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government pursuant to the United Nations Security Council resolution regarding the Rivonia trial in South Africa.

Mr. P. Thomas: The reply asked for in Question No. 5 is contained in the letter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 8th July which explained the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria has since been instructed to draw the attention of the South African Government to the widespread criticism in this country of the length of the sentences passed in this case, and to represent the desirability of reducing them. This he has done.

Mr. Hughes: That is a very unsatisfactory Answer. I asked what practical steps the Government were taking to see that clemency is extended to these men, and the Minister has not given me any indication of the practical steps. Does not he realise that Britain owes a debt of honour to these men, a debt emphasised by the very creditable and satisfactory vote of the United Nations, to see that clemency is extended to these unfortunate prisoners?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the Answer which I gave to his two Questions, he will find that in the latter part of it I mentioned the practical steps which were taken.

Mr. John Hall: What control can this country possibly have over the independent judiciary of another country?

Mr. Thomas: None, Sir.

MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR FORCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received from


the Soviet Government with regard to the proposed multilateral nuclear force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Soviet Government addressed a Note to Her Majesty's Government on 11th July on this subject. Similar Notes were addressed to some of our allies, and we are considering them in conjunction with our Allies.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statement by the Minister without Portfolio in another place last week that the establishment of multilateral nuclear force would make national nuclear forces both unnecessary and unacceptable, may we take it that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government that if a multilateral force were established they would hand over all our national nuclear forces to that international force?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; that is a misapprehension of the nature of our own forces and the nature of the multilateral force.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the recent proposals for an experimental study of other forms of multilateral nuclear force which have been advanced by Her Majesty's Government, will the right hon. Gentleman give his assurance that during the Recess and during the period when the present House of Commons will not exist Her Majesty's Government will not in any case or in any form commit this country to participation in an international multilateral nuclear force?

Mr. Butler: There is no intention of taking a decision on a multilateral force at present.

Mr. Henderson: Are we to take it from the Foreign Secretary's reply that he repudiates the statement by the Minister without Portfolio when he said that national nuclear forces would be unwanted and unnecessary if a multilateral force were established?

Mr. Butler: I have not read into my noble Friend's speech the interpretation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (DEBTS)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many

Eastern European nations have in this Parliament settled their pre-war debts with this country; what were the terms; what is the latest position with regard to the Baltic claims and the Hungarian and Rumanian debts; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take between now and the Dissolution of Parliament to bring about their settlement.

Mr. Mathew: The only debt settlement reached with an East European country during this Parliament was our agreement with Rumania of November, 1960, published as Command Paper 1232. That Agreement covered certain pre-war debts and provided for any claims not covered to be examined in negotiations due to take place in 1966. As far as Baltic claims are concerned, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend on 11th May. As regards Hungary, a reply has just been received and is being considered by the Departments concerned.

Sir W. Teeling: As the Minister of State, Board of Trade, is now in Hungary and negotiating there for trade agreements, and as the Hungarian Government will not allow any money out of Hungary for any purpose except through their own channels, ought we not to remind the Hungarians that there are these debts owing by them? If Poland has been able to come to a settlement for something like 40 per cent., surely the Hungarians could be asked to do something similar?

Mr. Mathew: As I said, the reply was received only this morning and is under consideration. In the light of that reply, we shall, of course, bear those matters in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

"Leander" Class Frigates

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give details of the discussions he has had with the Spanish Government in the last five years with a view to promoting good relations with regard to Gibraltar; and whether during such discussions the question of "Leander" type frigates being supplied by Great Britain was raised by the Spanish Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The question of promoting good relations with regard to


Gibraltar was discussed during the Spanish Foreign Minister's visit to London in 1960 and the visit to Madrid in 1961 of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary. It has also been the subject of contact from time to time between Her Majesty's Embassy in Madrid and the Spanish Government. The question of the supply of "Leander" type frigates to Spain has not been raised in the context of these discussions by either side.

Mr. Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department been discussing this at any time? It is very difficult for hon. Members to find out which Department was discussing this so-called order or to find out whether, in fact, there was any order at all. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us, since we cannot get enlightenment from other Departments?

Mr. Butler: There were discussions on the subject of the provision of "Leander" type frigates. Those discussions have been suspended.

Mr. Lewis: Was there an order?

Mr. Fell: Is it not a little inconsistent of the Opposition to get so worried about the possible sale of a few frigates to what they call a Right-wing dictatorship when they themselves supplied three submarines and two frigates to the Right-wing dictatorship of Portugal when they were the Government and 16 Rolls-Royce Nene engines to the Left-wing dictatorship of Russia, which founded the jet age in Russia?

News Agency Report

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will protest to the Spanish Government concerning the publication in the Spanish Government news agency report of June of a statement wrongly asserted to have been publicly made by the British Ambassador in Spain to the effect that the present Spanish régime has done more for the working classes than any of its predecessors.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: Why not? Does the Foreign Secretary not know that the alleged statement was given wide

publicity in Spain, that it appears in the official Spanish news release and that it gives the impression that the Franco régime is given the official support of Her Majesty's Government? Does he not understand that that is a most unfortunate impression to give, and will he, therefore, make the protest which is suggested in the Question?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think that the incident has been very much exaggerated. Her Majesty's Ambassador never made any official statement about Spanish domestic affairs, and I would not wish to do so now.

Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if he made such a statement our Ambassador was absolutely right? In view of the Labour Party's attitude in this House to Spain, will he do his best to discover whether or not the Labour Party intends to declare war on Spain and, if so, ensure that it puts it in its manifesto so that at least British tourists know where they are?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (SALE OF ARMS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what policy was supported by the United Kingdom representative at the recent consideration by the United Nations of a resolution with regard to the export to South Africa of spare parts for vehicles, which would cover Saracen armoured cars.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In his explanation of our vote in favour of the Security Council resolution of 18th June, the United Kingdom representative referred to paragraph 12 of the Resolution which deals with the supply of arms to South Africa. He repeated that Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as previously stated, that is not to export to South Africa arms which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced. As regards Saracen armoured cars, I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th December.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the attitude of Great Britain in this matter one of pure casuistry? Did not the resolution of 18th June, for which we voted, call on


member States to stop the export not only of arms but of materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms in South Africa? And did we not, as the Foreign Secretary said, pledge that we would stop the export of arms which would enable apartheid to be enforced? Are we not exporting spare parts for Saracen armoured cars at this moment? Are we not, therefore, showing a complete reluctance to do anything practical against apartheid?

Mr. Butler: As the Prime Minister said on 19th December, we supply parts for Saracens under the existing contracts but we intend to make no new contracts. All applications for spares are carefully scrutinised in the light of our declared policy.

Mr. Mayhew: Are we seriously to take it that a commercial arms contract is regarded as more binding than United Nations resolutions for which we voted?

Mr. Butler: What we must take is that the policy at present being carried out is as stated by the Prime Minister and as I have repeated it here.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not the export of spare parts for Saracens show that the Government are sending munitions which could be used for the suppression of civil disorder in South Africa? Have the Government abandoned altogether their position that we send such arms as we send to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement, and do they now rest solely on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter? If they do, it is very hard to square that policy with our vote at the United Nations.

Mr. Butler: There was an explanation of our vote at the United Nations on which I have given a full Answer in reply to the original Question. As for the Saracens, we do not intend to make any new contracts. We are simply fulfilling the existing contracts. As I added, all applications for spares are carefully scrutinised in the light of our policy.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this contract will go on under which we are supplying spare parts?

Mr. Butler: I could not give that information without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS TRAINING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution has been pledged by Her Majesty's Government to the proposed United Nations Training and Research Institute; whether the contribution from this country will be on an annual basis; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Thomas: Subject to certain conditions, Her Majesty's Government have pledged to the proposed Institute a sum of $500,000 to cover the first five or six years of the Institute's operations. This pledge is the largest so far made by any Government and the Secretary-General of the United Nations has acknowledged it gratefully.

Mr. Prentice: While welcoming that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a departure from previous Government decisions not to contribute to endowment funds of this kind? If this new policy is to become the rule, would the Government reconsider their refusal to contribute to the endowment fund of the Institute of Labour Studies in Geneva? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that with the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that 43 countries have contributed to that fund but so far we have refused to do so?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that it is a departure from previous policy. It is a continuation of our policy to support as best we can, as indeed we do, the various activities of the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (BASES)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has recently received from other Governments about the British bases in Cyprus.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it nevertheless not be wise to recognise that sovereign bases in foreign countries have become an untenable anachronism? If it is the Government's view that some useful United Kingdom purpose is served by


having those facilities in this area, would it not be wise to negotiate for them to be freely provided by our allies in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Mr. Butler: We have had no representations from the Government of Cyprus or the other Governments concerned or from the United Nations. This does not come within the purview of the United Nations mediator. As these bases are valuable to us, I suggest that we go on as before.

Mr. Emery: Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on whether he thinks that the American bases in the United Kingdom are an "untenable anachronism"?

Hon. Members: They are not sovereign bases.

Mr. Shinwell: Although in the passage of time it may be found desirable to remove the bases from Cyprus, may we have an assurance—at any rate may I have an assurance—that we shall not allow ourselves to be pushed out by Archbishop Makarios and that if we decide to go out we shall go out as a result of negotiations?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I can give that as an unqualified assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Mr. P. Thomas: The Conference reconvened on 9th June, after a recess. During its Tuesday meetings on general and complete disarmament, it has continued to discuss the reduction of nuclear delivery vehicles with particular attention to the possibility of forming a Working Group for technical consideration of this subject. The Thursday meetings have been devoted to collateral and partial measures. The agenda now agreed between the United States and Soviet Co-Chairmen provides for alternate discussion of items proposed by the two sides.

Mr. Henderson: How long does the hon. Gentleman expect the discussions to go on? They have been going on for

about 12 years. Is there any possibility of narrowing the discussions on general disarmament with a view to securing a next-step agreement covering more limited objectives, such as the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons, the bonfire of bombers to which President Johnson attaches so much importance, and the freeze of nuclear strategic vehicles to which the Minister has referred?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that it would be right to expect quick successes at Geneva. One must look for serious and detailed work rather than spectacular results. As to the collateral measures which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, we discuss these at one meeting every week and we certainly hope that we shall be able to reach an agreement on one of them. There is a general feeling, I believe, in Geneva at the moment that the prospects are good.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Minister said that we must not expect rapid results. Does he reflect that hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent every year on military research which improves the weapons and makes them more dangerous and disarmament more difficult? Has any progress been made in this matter of the freeze? What has been the Government's attitude towards it?

Mr. Thomas: The United States representative at Geneva has given the conference further explanations of this very complicated subject, the freeze, and he has received Her Majesty's Government's support throughout.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for a settlement of the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia, through the medium of the Government of Thailand, in view of the relevance of these negotiations to British commitments in the area concerned.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Government of Thailand have already played a helpful part in facilitating contacts between Indonesia and Malaysia, and I have seen Press reports that the Thai Foreign Minister made new proposals for a


settlement to the Indonesian Foreign Minister when the latter visited Bangkok on 8th and 9th July. I understand that Dr. Subandrio has since, however, expressed the view that negotiations are, for the moment, impossible.

Mr. Brockway: Whatever is the compelling military situation, is not the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concerned mostly with the political settlement which must come at some point? Is he aware that the Tunku, the Prime Minister of Malaya, has been in America and has seen officials at the United States, U Thant and the Afro-Asian group of the United Nations? Would he be prepared to support a proposal that an Afro-Asian mission of good will be sent to Indonesia and Malaya to try to seek a military solution to this problem?

Mr. Butler: When in the Far East I did my best to encourage the Tokyo meeting to take place. Unfortunately, that meeting was not successful. With the approval of the Tunku, I would certainly be ready to submit any plan for consideration provided that it respects the independence and integrity of Malaysia.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government's pledged support for the United States Government's policy in South Vietnam includes support for the threat of military action against the Chinese People's Republic made by the United States Government in respect of events in that area.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Hon. Members will have noted that President Johnson reiterated at his Press Conference on 24th July that the United States seeks no wider war.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the American Under-Secretary of State, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, said the other day that the United States did not exclude the idea of extending the war to North Vietnam and that since then the Prime Minister of South Vietnam and the Commander-in-Chief of the South Vietnam Air Force, both of whom are literally in American pay and

under American orders, have both said that they intended to attack North Vietnam and have already dropped sabotage squads in North Vietnam? In the circumstances, will not the Foreign Secretary at least join with General de Gaulle and the Soviet Government in demanding a reconvening of the 14-Power Conference at Geneva?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the conditions for a conference are as yet satisfied, partly because at least one nation involved—namely, South Vietnam —would not attend. When I go to Moscow—by tomorrow—however, I hope to have conversations with the Soviet Government on this point, and I will bear in mind what is said in this House.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am sure that everyone will welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about discussing the whole question of South-East Asia when he is in Moscow. Will he also recall that Mr. Bundy said that neutralisation might on certain terms be acceptable for both North and South Vietnam?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I think that that depends upon the terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusions were reached on the situation in Laos at the recent Vientiane Conference of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Canada, India, South Vietnam and Thailand.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Those taking part agreed that the deteriorating military situation in Laos presented a grave threat to the peace of South-East Asia. They unanimously agreed to call on the Co-Chairmen, in the way each thought appropriate, to do everything in their power to urge all parties concerned to bring about an immediate cease-fire throughout the Kingdom, and to withdraw all forces to the positions which they held before the recent fighting, the cease-fire and withdrawal to be controlled and verified by the International Control Commission. A copy of the full Communiqué issued at the end of the talks is in the Library.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received this weekend a message from Mr. Khrushchev, as one of the Co-Chairmen, in which he indicated that he may withdraw from the Co-Chairmanship and urged that there should be a 14-Power Conference on this matter? When the right hon. Gentleman goes to Moscow, will he do his utmost to secure a resumption of the Geneva Conference, which alone could be a solution of these problems?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We had hoped that the Polish proposals, which I was discussing up to Saturday evening, would be a preliminary, perhaps, to a wider conference. It now appears that the Soviet Government have certain definite views about an immediate wider conference, and it is precisely this problem which I shall be discussing tomorrow.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the Foreign Secretary press upon Mr. Khrushchev how grave it would be if Russia withdrew as Co-Chairman and that we have really a very great common interest in this part of the world with the Soviet Union? May I wish the right hon. Gentleman luck in his visit to Moscow?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. I certainly intend to press upon both Mr. Gromyko, who is my Co-Chairman, and Mr. Khrushchev, the importance of the Soviet Union not losing an interest in this area. We have hitherto had a wide measure of agreement with the Soviet Government on this area and it would be a great pity if that did not continue.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will the Foreign Secretary, whilst impressing upon Mr. Khrushchev the message that my right hon. Friend has just asked him to convey, bear in mind that it would be wrong to assume that the British public in any way wants to be engaged in any military action in South-East Asia? It would be against the spirit of the British people. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his authority as one of the Co-Chairmen to try to recall the Geneva Conference, irrespective of the wishes of the Government of South Vietnam, which has never been democratic?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that there is any intention of the British actually

taking part in operations in South-East Asia. I will certainly bear in mind the rest of what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (BRITISH PROPERTY)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a further statement about discussions with the United Arab Republic Government about the de-sequestration of British nationals whose property was re-sequestrated in October, 1961.

Mr. Mathew: There have been no developments since the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 15th June. Close contact with United Arab Republic officials continues, but Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo has yet to receive a reply to its request for clarification of the United Arab Republic's intentions.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been really no development in this matter for nearly three years and that these people's property is now deteriorating both physically and in value? Will he really do something to persuade the United Arab Republic Government to say that they will either return or retain this property? If he cannot get a reply, will he consider referring the matter to the International Court?

Mr. Mathew: As I have said, we are in continuous contact. We have repeatedly informed the U.A.R. authorities of our concern and have asked them at every opportunity, both in Cairo and in London, for a statement of their intentions. We would consider with attention any proposal for negotiations from the U.A.R. authorities, but so far no such proposal has been received. It would be premature for us at this stage either to initiate negotiations until we have received the clarification for which we have asked, especially of the recent decree which as been promulgated in Cairo, or to take the action which my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCES (INCIDENTS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to the United Kingdom representatives in order to prevent


the breakdown of conferences held by or under the auspices of various United Nations agencies by unconstitutional demands for the expulsion of certain members.

Mr. P. Thomas: United Kingdom representatives at such conferences are required to make every possible effort to prevent breakdowns of this kind. Her Majesty's Government deplore such incidents, but the fact is that the circumstances in which they may arise can be beyond our control.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agencies of the United Nations are now being used for political purposes? Is he aware that any success of the walk-out technique would create a dangerous precedent? Will he, therefore, do all he can to see that this unconstitutional action does not achieve success?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I can safely say that we will do all we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALI REPUBLIC (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects diplomatic relations to be resumed between Great Britain and the Somali Republic.

Mr. P. Thomas: It is impossible to say at present. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 3rd February, we await an indication that the Somali Government, who broke off diplomatic relations in the first place, themselves wish to resume them.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that there is a lot of unofficial evidence that the Somali Government are now anxious to resume relations? Would he agree that the resumption of relations would be of benefit not only to the Somali Republic and to Britain but also, in the long run, to Kenya?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member will be aware that the present Somali Government failed to secure a Parliamentary vote of confidence on 14th July. Until another Somali Government is formed, I do not think that we can hope for any new development.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the Minister consider making a statement that Her Majesty's Government would welcome the resumption of these diplomatic relations in this important corner of Africa?

Mr. Thomas: If an approach is made to us, we will certainly give it very sympathetic consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LATIN AMERICA (BRITISH COUNCIL)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will promote a further expansion of the work of the British Council in Latin America.

Mr. Mathew: Subject to the provision of additional funds, the British Council plans to expand its work in Latin America still further, laying particular emphasis on the teaching of the English language.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for that reply. Would the Minister agree that we have more potential friends and fewer enemies in Latin America than probably anywhere else in the world? Would he agree that 6 per cent. of the B.B.C.'s overseas expenditure and only 2 per cent. of technical assistance expenditure is really too low for this increasingly important area?

Mr. Mathew: I certaintly agree that the expansion of the Council's work in Latin America is most desirable. Our resources are inevitably limited and we must attempt to use them as effectively as possible in all areas of the world, but this expansion is, I hope, about to take place.

Sir K. Thomson: What does my hon. Friend mean by "subject to the necessary additional funds being available"? Is he aware that there is great need for an expansion of this work both in Brazil, for example, and in Peru, where great advantages are to be gained by pursuing the work of the British Council on an extended scale?

Mr. Mathew: We have expanded, and the amount allocated for British Council work in Latin-America in the current year is £283,000. This compares with £233,000 in 1963–64 and is an increase


of £50,000. These sums do not include, for example, expenditure on scholars or visitors from Latin-American countries, the supply of Council books and material and theatrical performances which are sent to Latin-America. We are now considering proposals for a further expansion during 1965–66.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will not the Government consider this again and consider whether it might not be wise to make larger sums of money available as Latin-America will be one of the greatest potential markets in the world over the next 20 years?

Mr. Mathew: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and that is what we are doing—considering a further expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION0 (MINISTERIAL MEETING)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions took place at the Western European Union ministerial meeting on the mixed-manned force.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what statement he made at the Western European Union of the terms on which Her Majesty's Government are at present prepared to participate in either the proposed multilateral, or the mixed-manned force, or both.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 20th July to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) about this meeting. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Multilateral Force was not on the agenda, and I made no statement of our attitude towards it.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not extraordinary that this very important subject to Western defence was not on the agenda? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if the allies go ahead with this plan and allow the Germans to have a finger or fingers on the nuclear button, it will be extremely provocative? Would he, therefore, give the matter the most careful consideration?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Naturally, it is a matter for great consideration, on

which Her Majesty's Government have not made a final decision.

Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify that Answer a little further? Is he aware that because of British participation in the experimental voyage the view is bound to spread that Her Majesty's Government are in the process of becoming committed in some way to a multilateral or mixed-manned force? Would he make it clear if the Government are categorically opposed to any measure which will spread the ownership, manufacture or control of nuclear weapons, because it would make the situation more difficult?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I can give a definite assurance. We are against any dissemination of nuclear weapons. We do not regard the multilateral force in itself as being disseminatory.

Commander Courtney: Will my right hon. Friend convey to our allies the very interesting point brought out in a letter to The Times today, that if we proceed with this multilateral nuclear force in its present form it will undoubtedly result in a proliferation of Soviet merchant ships all round the world equipped with similar weapons?

Mr. Butler: All these matters are taken into consideration, and they will be taken into consideration before any decision is reached.

Mr. Emery: As the whole of the defence of the Western European alliance rests on credibility, would not my right hon. Friend consider that if we could overcome all the difficulties in the alliance in setting up a mixed-manned force this would make the whole defence alliance of Europe appear much more credible in that we are able to overcome these difficulties in our own defence arrangements?

Mr. Butler: It is precisely to see what the answer to this sort of question is that we are engaged in discussions in Paris and Washington.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT, 1950 (FRANCE)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Tripartite Agreement of 1950 was last


discussed with the Government of France; and what assurances regarding their support of that Agreement have been given to him by the French Government.

Mr. P. Thomas: We are in normal contact with the French Government on questions affecting the Middle East, and I have every reason to believe that they share our concern for the maintenance of peace and stability in the area.

Mr. Jeger: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he would not go as far as his right hon. Friend went this time last week when he said about the Tripartite Agreement that it had been confirmed quite recently by the American Government? Has he not had a similar agreement recently from the French Government, the third party to this Agreement?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what my right hon. Friend has said recently, he reaffirmed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) on 14th May, 1963, that we regard the United Nations as primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. If any threat to peace arises, we will consult immediately with the United Nations and take whatever action we feel may be required.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Foreign Secretary be bearing in mind during his visit to Moscow that this problem will always be a danger until some understanding is reached between the Tripartite Powers on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will bear that and all other relevant matters in mind on his visit to Moscow.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, until any further agreement has been reached, we still regard ourselves at least as bound by the Tripartite Declaration?

Mr. Thomas: I think the position is that the 1950 Tripartite Declaration represented the situation at that time. Since then, the Declaration has not been

retracted, but I think we must accept that there has been an alteration in the arms situation in that area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS CORPORATION (STOCKHOLDERS)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the British holders of the first debenture stock of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Corporation have not received compensation since the Corporation was nationalised in 1929, if he will give an assurance that before Her Majesty's Government conclude a financial agreement with the Argentine Government involving assistance to them from the United Kingdom he will require provision for the payment of reasonable compensation in this case.

Mr. Mathew: There is no financial agreement now being negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government. The latter have, however, made preliminary inquiries about the possibility of obtaining various types of assistance for their development plan. Settlement of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company's claim will certainly have an important bearing on any discussions which we may have with the Argentine authorities in the context of aid.

Sir P. Agnew: As it is a very long time since the stockholders had their funds nationalised and they have received nothing at all yet, can my hon. Friend give the matter a very high priority in the discussions in regard to assistance with a view to some compensation being given?

Mr. Mathew: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — U THANT (LONDON VISIT)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with U Thant in London regarding peace and security in South-East Asia.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with U Thant, the Seretary-General of the United Nations, on the military situation


in Vietnam, so far as it comes within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I had an opportunity of discussing the situation in South-East Asia with U Thant while he was in London. As is normal practice, these talks were confidential.

Mr. Warbey: But as it is well known that U Thant has given the advice, with all the weight of his authority, that the problems of Vietnam and the neighbouring countries cannot be settled by military means and can best be settled by a recall of the 1954 Geneva Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he goes to Moscow, suggest to his Soviet colleague, the Co-Chairman of the Conference, that the time is now ripe for the two Co-Chairmen to inform the other parties to the Conference that they are ready to arrange a conference at such moment as will be convenient to the parties concerned and that the aim of the conference will be to restore peace and tranquillity in Indo-China on the basis of the Geneva Agreements?

Mr. Butler: The situation differs in the three parts of South-East Asia—namely, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam—and I doubt whether a general conference as proposed would solve the problems from which each area suffers. I shall be discussing these matters with the Soviet Government when I visit Moscow.

Mr. Zilliacus: As the United States is becoming more and more deeply involved both materially and in terms of prestige in seeking a military solution of this situation, will not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Government agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that a solution can be found by political means by the procedures laid down in the Charter, such as, for instance, the re-convening of the 1954 Conference? Should we not make a stand against the increasing danger of this war situation in the Far East extending to North Vietnam and ultimately to China?

Mr. Butler: I have already said in answer to previous Questions that we have no evidence that the United States wishes to extend the war to North Vietnam or China. I feel certain that if any such proposals were made we should be informed and also, I hope, consulted, and we should state our opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. AND S.E.A.T.O.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the recent official United States proposal that the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation shall pursue a common foreign policy in all areas of the globe where there is tension or conflict between Communist and non-Communist countries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I know of no such proposal.

Mr. Warbey: Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the recent statements, amongst others, made by Mr. Dean Rusk and Mr. Walt Rostow? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a much more militant American foreign policy is currently developing, with a definite attempt to involve America's allies in N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. in her own quarrels with Cuba, China and Vietnam? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this country will not be involved in these American quarrels?

Mr. Butler: I have read Mr. Rusk's speech of 9th May. I did not read in it any proposal that N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. should pursue a common foreign policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSCOW (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent during his visit to Moscow he proposes to discuss plans for additional trade between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development negotiated the prolongation of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement, and obtained from Mr. Patolichev an assurance concerning a closer balance in the trade between our two countries. The increased quotas for the exchange of consumer goods also recently agreed provide a useful basis for such an expansion. I shall naturally make known Her Majesty's Government's interest in increasing trade


between this country and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are all delighted that he is going to Moscow, but we hope that he will not go so far in extravagant praise of the achievements of Communism as did the former Prime Minister and so embarrass us all? Now that I.C.I. is investing £50 million in a factory in the Soviet Union and is no longer scared of Communism, can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to secure a greater measure of trade relations between us?

Mr. Butler: It is the Government's policy to improve trade and to advance credit.

Commander Courtney: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, for five years in succession, the Soviet Government have failed to implement Article 8 of the current Trade Agreement, which allows for the negotiation of a treaty of commerce and navigation to replace the temporary Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1934? Would it not be as well to mention these things to the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I will certainly mention them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one amazing trade phenomenon is that Russian ships come regularly to the port of Aberdeen and discharge cargo but leave again without taking on cargo—indeed, without buying anything, not even Scotch whisky? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that to see that justice is done?

Mr. Butler: This point was raised in the talks between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and Mr. Patolichev. We said that we wanted a bigger share of trade with the Soviet Union. Mr. Patolichev undertook to see whether this matter could not be remedied.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends making during his conversations in Moscow to protect the interests of British investors in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to firms who extend credit to the Soviet Union in the course of trade, there are already arrangements in existence for them to obtain cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. These arrangements are perfectly satisfactory and I therefore see no reason to raise the issue in Moscow.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am a small capitalist in the Soviet Union, having a small deposit in the Moscow Bank? It is in roubles and I cannot get it out, but I draw a modest rate of 3 per cent. and it is, I believe, invested in a sound economy. Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything possible to better relations between our two countries so that not only small investors like myself but big investors like I.C.I. will prosper as a result?

Mr. Butler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be glad to take charge of negotiations on his behalf if he would see me after Question Time.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is it not a novel idea that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should be a capitalist, however small? Will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries when in Moscow about the possibility of more trade in agricultural machinery and in livestock which was given such a favourable augury at the recent Moscow Exhibition?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. This visit will be a splendid follow-up to the exhibition, which was such a success. I also propose to discuss the extension of common inquiry into agricultural research with my opposite number.

Mr. Snow: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Is he satisfied that political directives between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade are kept up to date? Is he aware, for instance, that recently I protested at the high rates in respect of China and that these rates were subsequently reduced? There seems reason to believe that the E.C.G.D. is becoming rather more of a political instrument than was intended.

Mr. Butler: We are always ready to improve the facilities offered. If the hon.


Gentleman has any points that he would like to put, I would be glad to pass them on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will discuss with Mr. Khrushchev the organisation by international agreement of nuclear-free zones and zones of disengagement on the basis of equivalent withdrawals of armed forces, or guarantees not to supply arms and seek bases, by East and West in as many areas of the world as possible; and if he will endeavour to prepare joint proposals on these lines to be put before the Geneva Conference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I hope to discuss with the Soviet leaders a wide range of questions concerning international security, but I cannot anticipate the details of these discussions or their outcome.

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the idea of discussing specifically with Mr. Khrushchev the idea of nuclear-free zones? If the right hon. Gentleman, like most Foreign Secretaries, is genuinely opposed to the dissemination of nuclear weapons, would he not put forward specific proposals to the Soviet Government along the lines of those emanating from the Polish Government to try to arrive at some joint proposals to put to the Geneva Conference and to make some progress?

Mr. Butler: I have already had notice that these matters will be raised from the Soviet side, and we shall be only too glad to consider them. The conditions on which we could consider them were stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as lately as 25th November in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). Subject to these conditions, I think that we might be able to have satisfactory discussions.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since it is now nine years since Lord Avon first put forward proposals for demilitarisation, to some degree, of Central Europe, will not the right hon. Gentleman now make an attempt to reassess whether our conditions are really necessary and whether a practical solution could not be found?

Mr. Butler: I think that will depend on the nature of the interchanges I have.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give what he called earlier an unqualified assurance that the British Government have now departed from the hostile attitude they originally took towards the Rapacki proposals?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the Government take a hostile attitude to them. They take up an attitude in concert with our allies of criticism of certain aspects of Mr. Rapacki's proposals. That is all.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Ancient Monuments Laboratory

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made in reducing the accumulation of laboratory material waiting to be treated in his Department's Ancient Monuments Laboratory.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): Progress has been hampered by accommodation difficulties and by shortage of staff, but the conservation laboratory is now being established, with more extensive facilities, in the building occupied by the rest of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. An increased complement of technical staff has also been agreed.

Mr. Boyden: What is the present accumulation? Is the laboratory able to deal with things currently as they come in or is there serious delay?

Mr. Sharples: There is still a certain accumulation and this will not be resolved until the Laboratory gets its new accommodation. We are also increasing the staff.

Ancient Monuments (Scheduling)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether the estimate of the Ancient Monuments Board for England in their last report, that it will take another 25 years to complete the scheduling of monuments worthy of preservation, remains valid.

Mr. Sharples: At the current rate of progress it would take just under 23 years to complete the scheduling of the ancient monuments mentioned in the Board's recent report. We are now considering whether the staff should be strengthened as recommended by the Board.

Mr. Boyden: Surely the hon. Gentleman can do more than just consider it? Would it not be better to spend a little money and increase the staff now rather than have so many monuments destroyed that there will not be any work left in 15 or 20 years' time?

Mr. Sharples: We must keep this in perspective. There is no evidence that any monuments are being destroyed as a result. We have a good system of reporting when a monument is threatened. We have only had the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board for six weeks and we are urgently considering its proposals.

St. Mawgan Air Force Station (Officers' Mess)

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when it is intended to replace the temporary wartime Nissen hut in which the officers' mess at St. Mawgan Royal Air Force station is at present accommodated.

Mr. Sharples: A contract for the construction of a new officers' mess at St. Mawgan was let last May and work should be completed in August, 1965.

Commander Courtney: While paying every democratic tribute to the century of the common man, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the officers of this R.A.F. station did not have to wait more than 20 years to get out of their wartime accommodation?

Mr. Sharples: The new officers' mess is at present being built. We cannot do more than that.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill [Lords] has been committed to a Select Committee, which is still considering it. The intention of the Bill is to allow the building of a jetty across the Severn Estuary. You will also know that the objection to the building of that jetty is that it will alter the régime of the Severn Estuary.
Since the Bill was committed to the Select Committee, expert evidence has been taken and a test rig, designed to take trial borings for the building of the jetty, collapsed last evening. Is it possible for you to rule that the Committee should not report until it has re-examined the evidence in the light of this event?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite improper to discuss it now. It does not arise as a point of order. As the matter is before a Select Committee, we cannot discuss it now.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. N. Pannell: On a point of order. In view of the importance of Question No. 52, has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works sought your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: No. He has not so sought my permission.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Ordered,
That this day paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) shall have effect as if a reference to half-past Seven o'clock were substituted for a reference to half-past Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [21st July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65; DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65; DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65; DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1964–65; DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63; AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

1. That a sum, not exceeding £219,615,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

£


Class VI, Vote 13, Ministry of Health
3,125,000


Class VI, Vote 15, National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales
123,062,000


Class VI, Vote 16 Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £2,651,000)
30,739,000


Class VI, Vote 18, National Health Service, etc., Scotland
62,689,000


Total
£219,615,000

Orders of the Day — CLASS III

VOTE 2. SCOTTISH HOME AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT

2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,489,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home and Health Department; for a grant to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund; for expenses in connection with fire, probation and sundry other services; and for grants in aid.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

CLASS I

3. That a sum, not exceeding £63,312,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
205,000


2. House of Commons
1,192,000


3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,817,000


4. Privy Council Office
36,000


5. Post Office Ministers
5,000


6. Customs and Excise
15,260,000


7. Inland Revenue
42,350,000


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
417,000


9. Civil Service Commission
549,000


10. Royal Commissions, etc
481,000



£63,312,000

CLASS II

4. That a sum, not exceeding £130,911,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Foreign Service (including a Supplementary sum of £52,000)
19,357,000


2. Foreign Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £1,561,000)
12,189,000


3. British Council
3,588,000


4. Commonwealth Relations Office (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £9,839,000)
30,353,000


5. Commonwealth Grants and Loans (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £13,155,000)
25,117,000


6. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £394,000)
4,592,000


7. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £1,931,000)
8,279,000


8. Development and Welfare (Colonial Office)
5,250,000


9. Department of Technical Co-operation (including a Supplementary sum of £913,000)
21,141,000


11. Development and Welfare (Commonwealth Relations Office)
162,000


12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
883,000



£130,911,000

CLASS III

5. That a sum, not exceeding £107,336,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
 9,123,000


3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
9,060,000


4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)
1,412,000


5. Police, England and Wales
53,950,000


6. Police, Scotland
8,081,000


7. Prisons, England and Wales
14,708,000


8. Prisons, Scotland
1,884,000


9. Child Care, England and Wales
3,086,000


10. Child Care, Scotland
573,000


11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
900


12. County Courts
624,000


13. Legal Aid Fund
3,884,000


14. Law Charges
627,000


15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
267,000


16. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
57,000



107,336,900

CLASS IV

6. That a sum, not exceeding £496,220,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Board of Trade
4,948,000


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading, etc., Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £8,750)
4,808,750


3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
22,591,000


4. Export Credits
900


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
900


6. Ministry of Labour
20,331,000


7. Ministry of Aviation
173,800,000


8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
14,500,000


9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)
41,009,000


10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
8,145,000


11. Ministry of Transport
3,728,000


12. Roads, etc., England and Wales
121,181,000


13. Roads, etc., Scotland
15,533,000


14. Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £325,000)
1,694,000






£


15. Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
61,471,000


16. Ministry of Power
2,479,000



496,220,550

CLASS V

7. That a sum, not exceeding £231,348,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
15,400,000


2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
5,613,000


3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
50,420,000


4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
8,669,000


5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
112,335,000


6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
15,770,000


7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
8,027,000


8. Food (Strategic Reserves)
1,473,000


9. Fishery Grants and Services
3,479,000


10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,762,000


11. Forestry Commission
8,400,000



231,348,000

CLASS VI

8. That a sum, not exceeding £1,598,798,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £9,662,000)
23,626,000


2. Scottish Development Department
2,427,000


3. Housing, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £4,000)
52,474,000


4. Housing, Scotland
10,211,000


5. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
416,786,000


6. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
42,902,000







£


7. Rate Deficiency, etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
109,450,000


8. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
14,638,000


9A. Department of Education and Science (Revised sum)
4,269,000


9B. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (Revised sum)
90,684,000


9C. Awards to Students (Revised sum)
3,427,000


10. Scottish Education Department
16,776,000


11. Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)
900


12. Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)
900


14. National Health Service, etc., (Hospital Services, etc.), England and Wales
329,583,000


17. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), England and Wales
900


19. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland
900


20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
5,154,000


21. National Insurance
157,600,000


22. Family Allowances
93,775,000


23. National Assistance Board
153,406,000


24. War Pensions, etc.
71,607,000



1,598,798,600

CLASS VII

9. That a sum, not exceeding £132,596,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Universities and colleges, etc. Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £6,300,000)
94,218,000


3. Atomic Energy
10,087,000


4. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
16,608,000


5. Medical Research Council
5,518,000


6. Agricultural Research Council
5,393,000


7. Nature Conservancy
497,000


8. Grants for Science
275,000



132,596,000

CLASS VIII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £4,861,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—




£


1. British Museum
737,000


2. British Museum (Natural History)
497,000


3. Science Museum
268,000


4. Victoria and Albert Museum
450,000


5. Imperial War Museum
65,000


6. London Museum
45,000


7. National Gallery
104,000


8. National Maritime Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £15,000)
98,000


9. National Portrait Gallery
44,000


10. Tate Gallery
81,000


11. Wallace Collection
40,000


12. Royal Scottish Museum
88,000


13. National Galleries of Scotland
50,000


14. National Library of Scotland
80,000


15. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
19,000


16. Grants for the Arts
2,195,000



4,861,000

CLASS IX

11. That a sum, not exceeding £222,215,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Public Building and Works
20,280,000


2. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
36,150,000


3. Public Buildings Overseas
4,751,000


4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)
16,500,000


5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)
40,969,000


6. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)
31,667,000


7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation
6,700,000


8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories
767,000


9. Houses of Parliament Buildings
367,000


10. Royal Palaces
555,000


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
924,000


12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
958,000


13. Rates on Government Property
13,500,000


14. Stationery and Printing
11,950,000


15. Central Office of Information
5,289,000


16. Government Actuary
23,000


17. Government Hospitality
105,000


18. Civil Superannuation, etc
30,760,000


19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.
900



222,215,900

CLASS X

12. That a sum, not exceeding £5,020,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Charity Commission
212,000


2. Crown Estate Office
121,000


3. Friendly Societies Registry
88,000


4. Royal Mint
900


5. National Debt Office
900


6. Public Works Loan Commission
900


7. Public Trustee
900


8. Land Registry
900


9. War Damage Commission
147,000


10. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)
121,000


11. Ordnance Survey
2,546,000


12. Public Record Office
134,000


13. Scottish Record Office
42,000


14. Registrar General's Office
565,000


15. Registrar General's Office, Scotland
74,000


16. Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


17. National Savings Committee
965,000



5,020,400

CLASS XI

13. That a sum, not exceeding £57,642,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Broadcasting
44,873,000


2. Carlisle State Management District
900


3. State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
4,122,000


5. Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)
1,072,000


6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
665,000


7. Irish Land Purchase Services
520,000


8. Development Fund
861,000


9. Secret Service
5,000,000


10. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
442,000


11. Repayments to Civil Contingencies Fund
86,000



57,642,800

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65

14. That a sum, not exceeding £17,473,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the

sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain joint service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

15. That a sum, not exceeding £334,462,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Service, viz.:—



£


2. Royal Navy Reserves
1,323,000


3. Navy Departmental Headquarters
10,657,000


6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
174,822,000


7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
147,660,000



334,462,000

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

16. That a sum, not exceeding £297,629,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—



£


3. Army Department Headquarters
6,479,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
113,400,000


5. Movements
27,520,000


6. Supplies
42,730,000


7. Stores and Equipment
107,500,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services (Supplementary sum)
800



297,629,800

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

17. That a sum, not exceeding £131,891,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—



£


3. Air Force Department Headquarters
4,550,000


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorogical Office
43,870,000


5. Movements
13,700,000


6. Supplies
51,000,000


8. Lands, Buildings and Works
3,130,000


10. Non-effective Services
15,640,000


11. Additional Married Quarters
1,000



131,891,000

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,606,981 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 4th February 1964 (H.C. 92) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (H.C. 213).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,086,652 6s. 7d. out of surpluses arising out of vertain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1964 (H.C. 91) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (H.C. 213).

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,780,352 10s. 9d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on another Vote, not offset by a saving in expenditure as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 6th February 1964 (H.C. 99) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (H.C. 213).

First Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY DOCTOR SERVICE

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move to leave out "£219,615,000" and to insert "£219,614,000" instead thereof.
Though, inevitably, reference has been made in a number of health debates to the family doctor service, this is the first time for very many years that we have concentrated a health debate on general practice. I think that the House would agree that at least the debate is timely, for general practice is facing a critical situation in the National Health Service.
Relations between general practitioners and the Government have never been particularly good from the start of the Health Service, a situation for which the present Chairman of the Indepen-

dent Television Authority, Lord Hill, bears at least some responsibility. At the outset of the Service, it was expected that before long general practice would be conducted, in the main, through the medium of health centres. In a sense, the arrangements in the National Health Service Act for the organisation of the structure of the traditional form of general practice, that is, the single family doctor or partnership of two or three doctors, were of an interim nature. As the House knows, the expectation that health centres would develop was not realised, apart from a few areas where special considerations applied, such as new towns.
There were two main reasons why health centres never got off the ground. The first was a marked lack of enthusiasm by the medical profession, which, somehow, did not seem to want to function from local authority premises, and the second was the lack of capital provided by central and local government for the building of health centres. Whatever the reasons, there were very few centres.
This presented a new situation, a situation which should have been obvious to the Government many years ago and which demanded action. No action was taken in any way to modify the arrangements for general practice, either then or since. That was the first big mistake. General practitioners, most of whom never felt altogether happy in the National Health Service, began to get disgruntled and to feel neglected and forgotten by the Government, and their morale began to fall noticeably.
There were plenty of warning signs which were ignored by a whole succession of Conservative Ministers of Health. The position was allowed to drift and to go on drifting until about a year ago, when the general practitioners erupted. That is not too strong a word to describe what then happened. I want to make it clear that in my view the troubles of the family doctor are by no means entirely concentrated around the subject of pay. I think that for many of them pay is very much a secondary issue. Nevertheless, the explosion was sparked off by the question of pay. Perhaps I can recall to the House the circumstances which gave rise to this.
It was in March, last year, that all doctors were recommended by the independent Review Body an increase of 14 per cent. It was intended to last for three years and it was accepted by the Government and by the profession. When it came to the point, the general practitioners found that they received not the 14 per cent. which they had, perhaps mistakenly, expected to receive, but only about 6 per cent. The reasons for this are very complicated and are connected with the central pool arrangements, with confusions between net and gross income and with the fact that, in effect, they had already received part of the increase which they had been awarded by the review body. Whatever the explanation, this situation seemed to the general practitioners to be just about the last straw, and a number of things began to happen in quick succession.
First, some G.P.s decided to form their own breakaway association, clearly on the basis that they were not adequately represented by the existing organisation, which they felt, rightly or wrongly, to be dominated by the hospital consultants. Through the medium of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), that association presented to the House a petition bearing the signatures of 6,000 family doctors.
Secondly, the general practitioners forced the British Medical Association to go back to the review body and to put forward another pay claim only one year after the previous one, which had been supposed to last for three years. It is interesting that this is the first time—I believe—that a pay claim has been put forward for only one section of the medical profession. Hitherto, the doctors have gone forward as a united profession.
Thirdly, I think that hon. Members who read the medical journals will have noticed that from time to time the correspondence columns became swamped with letters and protests from family doctors, couched often in extremely bitter terms. Lastly, we noticed that whenever doctors seemed to be gathered together in conference they displayed a tendency to pass rather wild resolutions and to close their ears to more responsible counsels, a situation which culmi-

nated in the extraordinary performance at Manchester a week ago, and about which I shall say a little more later in my remarks.
If remuneration is not all the trouble, or perhaps even the main trouble, what is it that has brought about this situation of acute malaise in the profession today? In short, it is that the family doctor feels frustrated in his wish to do a better and more significant job, to give a better service to his patients, than present arrangements allow him to do, or the present system makes possible. Certainly, that is the case amongst the younger and more progressive general practitioners, and I believe that it is true of the great majority of them.
What are the family doctors' actual grievances today? I will try to summarise them under four headings which I set out now, not in any particular order of importance. First, the question of remuneration, and particularly the method of payment. Secondly, conditions of work and terms of service. Thirdly, anxiety about their rôle in a comprehensive health service, and, in particular, their relationship with the hospitals. Lastly, their status within the profession and within society, and especially in relation to the hospital consultant. I want to amplify each of those points in turn, and during the course of my remarks I shall say what a Labour Government would do about these things.
The general practitioners' remuneration claim is now being considered by the Review Body, and it would be improper for me to make any comment on that. We shall await with interest its findings. But I believe that the anxieties of the profession are much more concerned with the method, than with the current level of pay, and especially with the very much criticised arrangements for the central pool, which is so complicated that few doctors fully understand its workings, and many have hardly even an inkling of them.
I have had occasion to study the workings of the central pool. Without boasting, may I say that I think that if I had 15 minutes at my disposal I could explain its complexities to the House, but I doubt whether the House would be very much wiser at the end of that quarter of an hour. Suffice it to say that I am sure that


it is possible, even without any change in the basic system of capitation fees, to evolve a simpler, more acceptable, and satisfactory method of paying general practitioners than the present pool allows.
I have been asked on many occasions—and so have some of my hon. Friends—to state Labour's attitude towards a salaried service. I should like to make it clear here and now that the Labour Party has no plans to impose a salaried service on general practitioners. But, equally, if the general practitioners themselves decide by a majority that they would prefer the system of a salaried service to the capitation system, we should, naturally, be willing to discuss this with them and try to work out satisfactory arrangements with representatives of the medical profession.
At the outset of the National Health Service the idea of a salaried service was a complete anathema to the doctors—and I think that I am right in saying that there is a provision in the National Health Service Act excluding such a solution—but, from what I have been told, I do not think that the opposition to a salaried service is nearly so strong today. Indeed, I think t hat one local medical committee—I believe that it was in Manchester— passed a resolution only a few weeks ago in favour of a salaried service. If one wanted to make a change, and it was desired by both sides, it would be quite easy to bring it about by amending legislation.
What I think is even less satisfactory than the actual remuneration itself and the method of remunerating is the system for reimbursing practice expenses. This is a matter to which I have drawn attention on many occasions in recent years in speeches in this House and outside. Briefly, what happens is that the doctor gets back from the Government, not the expenses that he actually incurs in running his practice, but an arithmetical proportion based on the number of patients on his list. He gets back a proportion of the total expenses incurred in the aggregate by all general practitioners, and allowed by the Inland Revenue.
That has an anomalous result. It means that a general practitioner who spends more on giving a better service to his patients, on maintaining his surgery and his premises, on employing ancillary staff, a receptionist, running an

appointments system, and so on, gets back substantially less than he spends, but if he is one of the other kind, who does not worry about functioning from a shabby surgery in a back street, does not employ help, does not use the appointments system, and so on, he gets back a great deal more than he has spent and makes a handsome profit on the deal. I have on many occasions described this situation as ludicrous, and I do so again this afternoon.
I know that, although his predecessor, shortly before leaving office, said that he could offer no solution to this intractable problem, I think he called it, the right hon. Gentleman has instituted discussions with the profession about the question of practice expenses. I welcome the fact that he has taken this rather belated initiative, but from what I have heard I gather that these discussions got off to a pretty bad start.
The right hon. Gentleman made a proposal to the doctors, which was rejected out of hand by their representatives, and if the proposal was anything like the stories that I have heard about it I think that they were justified in rejecting it. But then the right hon. Gentleman did a rather odd thing. Through the medium of a Written Answer to a planted Question in the House he accused the doctors of circulating a misleading account of the negotiations that had taken place. The doctors were surprised and disgusted at this. They protested to the right hon. Gentleman, and I gather that he was forced to apologise to them, although he did so in somewhat ungracious terms.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): Will the hon. Gentleman say where he got the information, first, that I apologised, and secondly, that I did so in ungracious terms?

Mr. Robinson: That information came from those who were involved in the negotiations. Naturally, I was very surprised at this extraordinary statement, given in the Written Answer. If the right hon. Gentleman did not apologise, and if he sticks to saying that a totally misleading account of the negotiations was published, perhaps he will say so now.

Mr. Barber: I was discussing this matter with a small group of people.


I gather that the hon. Gentleman has had conversations with them. I explained my position to them, and why I thought that the report which had been given was misleading. We were on the most amicable terms after the meeting.

Mr. Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman still say that the account was misleading?

Mr. Barber: I do, and I explained why.

Mr. Robinson: I am glad to have that on the record. I understood that he had changed his view.
Anyhow, he has now put forward some new proposals, and these, we are told, represent a considerable advance on what he put forward in the first place. I very much hope that they will provide a basis for a settlement. I can tell him that if he cannot find a solution, we shall do so after October.
That is all that I want to say on the subject of remuneration. I turn now to the conditions of work. The family doctors complain that they are overworked and cannot give adequate time to their patients. This is certainly true of many of them—perhaps most of them. They are trying to do their job today with nineteenth century tools. It is not possible for the doctor, working on his own, to give the service which his patient is entitled to expect and which is what the best of the doctors would wish to give.
I want to quote what a doctor wrote in the British Medical Journal not long ago. He talked of
menial medicine for menials for menial rewards.
I would not go so far as that, but the fact that a doctor can use a phrase like this in a public letter is symptomatic of the low state of general practitioner morale at the moment. The solution to the problem lies largely in the development of group practice—doctors in groups of perhaps three or four, up to six or eight, coming together and functioning collectively either from a health centre or a group practice centre.
There are considerable advantages in such a system, both for doctor and for patient. The practice can be carried on from far more pleasant and suitable sur-

roundings, which can be properly equipped; it is much easier to employ ancillary help and to run an appointments system for the patients. It is possible to have nurses and health visitors seconded from the local authority services. It makes comparatively simple the working of rota arrangements for weekend duties, night duties, holidays and sickness. I would not say that it copes fully with the locum problem, but it makes it very much less difficult. And it does all this without compromising in any way the concept of a patient's personal doctor.
There has been a steady move towards group practice. I believe that more than a quarter of our doctors now function in group practice. But it has been moving very slowly. That is because there has been insufficient incentive to form group practices, and because formidable financial problems are involved. So far, the only help that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have given to group practice has been the interest-free loan scheme, which came originally out of the pool, so that in a sense it was the doctors' own money—although in the last couple of years it has been provided by the Government.
This is on a fairly small scale. I notice from the right hon. Gentleman's annual report that 95 loans were approved last year and only 59 the year before, and that the average amount of each loan was between £5,000 and £6,000. This is quite inadequate for the kind of expansion of group practice that we would like to see. I want to quote two cases with which I have come into personal contact in recent weeks. The first relates to a group of three doctors in a very small group practice who are working from an excellent centre which has been purpose-designed and well equipped, and which cost £17,000. Towards the cost of this the practice received a loan of £9,000, leaving the doctors £8,000 to find out of their own pockets or by borrowing from the bank.
This group is doing well, and it wants an additional partner. But an additional partner will become a part owner of this capital asset, which cost the original three doctors £8,000 plus £9,000 loan. So the new partner is expected to buy himself into the practice. In other words, he is expected to "chip in" about £4,000. Not only does this considerably limit the


number of doctors who could apply for such a vacancy; it means that we are once more back into the buying and selling of practices—through the side door. This is a totally unsatisfactory development. These three doctors were giving an excellent service to their patients, but to do so they had to subsidise this practice out of their own pockets to the tune of several hundreds of pounds a year each.
The other case concerns a number of doctors—six in all; two partnerships of two and two working on their own—who wished to form a group in an area west of London. It is not one of the most expensive areas. They searched for suitable premises, and they ultimately found a building which would have done very well, but after conversion it would have cost not less than £42,000. The maximum group practice loan that they could hope to obtain was just about half that figure. They simply could not face the capital liability of more than £20,000 spread between the six, so this admirable scheme, which they all wanted to embark upon, has fallen through.
The Government must accept responsibility for providing premises for group practice. A system of loans must be replaced by one of grants. That is what a Labour Government would be prepared to do. We should also give direct financial assistance towards the employment of ancillary help of the kind that I have described.
We must also, wherever suitable conditions exist and the doctors wish to work from health centres, ensure that health centres are built in those places. At this point I throw out an idea to the House. Why should not executive councils be given the job of planning general practice in the areas over which they have responsibility, in the same kind of way that a regional hospital board plans hospital services? I fully realise that group practice is a less suitable form of general practice in scattered rural areas. Some parallel encouragement and help—perhaps help with premises—will have to be given to those family doctors for whom group practice is not the ideal solution.
Another complaint arises out of the size of doctors' lists—the complaint that they have too many patients to look after. The present maximum is 3,500 per doctor,

and the average, which is 2,300 patients per general practitioner, is certainly too large to enable patients to get the service that they are entitled to demand. The development of group practice will certainly contribute towards easing the burden on the individual doctor, but the only long-term solution—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises—is to provide more doctors.
Recruitment into general practice is falling disastrously. I understood, from a Written Answer that I got from the Minister only last week. that the average number of applications for each practice vacancy has dropped in five years from 31 to 13, and of those 13 many will be found to be quite unsuitable. Indeed, recruitment is barely, if at all, keping pace with retirement and death. What will happen in 1968—the year when the National Health Service is 20 years old and in which an abnormally large batch of general practitioners will, for the first time, be able to retire on full superannuation?
We have to have more doctors. There is nothing between us, for the first time, on this matter. I repeat the undertaking that I have given before, that a Labour Government will ensure the setting up of four new medical schools at least, as against the one new school which this Government appear to think sufficient, apart from squeezing a few more students into existing schools. But this is very much of a long-term solution, and we have got to do something in the intervening 10 years.
One of the hopes lies in keeping here in Britain the doctors whom we are currently training, and I hope that the Minister was as disturbed as I was to read the survey by Abel-Smith and Gales, which has shown pretty conclusively that between 350 and 400 doctors emigrate every year, which represents nearly one-quarter of the total qualifying in British medical schools.
I believe that to improve and modernise the conditions of general practice would be one way of encouraging British doctors to practise in our National Health Service. One might also, perhaps, persuade more doctors to postpone their retirement to help us over this hump. That is the only hope that I can see in the short-term.
I now come to the third set of grievances, and that is the general practitioner's rôle in a comprehensive service. The G.P. sees the publicity attaching to the Government's 10-year Hospital Plan. He sees the local authorities' 10-year health and welfare plan. What does he see for general practice? He sees, if he reads the right hon. Gentleman's annual report, just published, this sentence, on page 3:
The general practitioner services do not lend themselves to long-term planning on the same basis as the hospital and local authority services …
I think that that reveals an attitude which may be an important factor in the G.P.'s frustration today—the sense that he is being neglected, that he is working in isolation, especially from the hospital service which, he feels, is getting a disproportionate amount of attention and resources.
I believe we all want to see the G.P. working in the hospital for part of his time, but there are considerable difficulties in the way of this. The average doctor is far too busy in his own practice, although, here again, group practices would be of some assistance.
Then there is the question of the capacity in which the doctor works in the hospital. Is he to be a clinical assistant attached to a team, or is he to be in charge of his own beds? There is much disagreement about the optimum solution. Somehow, the G.P. ought to feel a part of his local district hospital. It should be the place where he goes for stimulation and refreshment in a professional and intellectual sense. There may be no single solution to this, but I believe that if we can get the G.P. in the hospital it will be of benefit both ways, because it will enable the consultants to understand the general practitioner's rôle and his problems better than many of them do today.
That brings me to the last of the G.P.'s complaints, which is his status within the profession. Too many family doctors see what they think is the exaggerated respect accorded to the hospital consultant. They look at the salary differential between them, the fixed hours of work and the absence of any locum problems of the hospital doctor, and by comparison they feel that they have got a kind of inferior status in the profes-

sion and, because of that, in society at large. Somehow, this is a situation which we have got to change. Here action, although it could be encouraged by the Government, must primarily be taken by the profession itself. But since there is little sign of any lead either by the profession or by the Government, perhaps, as a layman, I might throw out an idea or two.
Surely we must in future regard general practice as a specialty, just like surgery, pædiatrics, or general medicine—a specialty which requires, as they do, special post-graduate training, which would include actually working under supervision in general practice for a period. Indeed, I think that it would be of the greatest benefit to medicine as a whole if every doctor could have in the early part of his career some firsthand experience of family doctoring. Then there should be far more extensive arrangements for post-graduate refresher courses, specialist courses in obstetrics, psychological medicine and other subjects.
There is an idea being canvassed at the moment for the setting up of an Institute of General Practice, which would have the job of carrying out research, education and establishing standards. I certainly think that that would be a most desirable development. Possibly it could be in association with the College of General Practitioners, which has made considerable effort in recent years to raise the quality of general practice.
This is the background to those unfortunate debates and ill-considered votes at Manchester a week ago, at a meeting which, we think, must have done great harm to the image of the doctor in the eyes of the patient and the public. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, spent a couple of days in Manchester and was guest of honour at the British Medical Association's annual dinner. I think that many hon. Members know what excellent hosts the Association's members are. That may be the explanation of the extraordinary statement that the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have made in his speech at that dinner. According to The Times, the Minister said that he would
help to protect the family doctor from that minority of time-consuming patients whose


lack of consideration places on the doctor a burden out of all proportion to their number.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, how will he protect the doctor? I hope that he will tell us when he winds up the debate. What further obstacles has he in mind to place in the way of the patient seeing the doctor? No doubt, if he followed his predecessor's example and once again doubled the prescription charge he would keep a lot more patients away from the doctors' surgeries very successfully. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what techniques he adopts in Doncaster to protect himself from the time-consuming constituents that we all know? Does he assume that if a constituent takes up his time, the constituent does not really need his services? Is that the assumption that he makes? What does he think is the main function of his office?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the job of the Minister of Health is to ensure that patients get advice and treatment that they need, or even the advice and treatment that they only think they need, or is it the Tory solution just to cut down demand in order to effect economies?—a very simple method, of course. Does not the right hon. Gentleman really appreciate that by that, I think, very injudicious remark, he has given support or, at any rate, will be interpreted as giving support and comfort to those doctors who wish to impose a charge for their services?

Mr. Barber: I will not deal at length now with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, in the context of what I was saying, what I said had no reference whatever to the imposition of any charge for consultation, which is certainly not the policy of this Government and never has been.

Mr. Robinson: I am delighted to hear that, because I wanted to get the answer to that question. That was the only remark in his speech which was quoted in The Times. I did not say that he said it in that context. I said that he was in danger of being interpreted as coming out in support of this attitude.
I state categorically that a Labour Government would have nothing whatever to do with any such proposition as

charging a fee to any patients visiting or being visited by their doctors. I hope that I am right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has given an equally categorical assurance on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Barber: I will give it now if it will save time.

Mr. Robinson: I am delighted to hear that. I refuse to believe that this is what the great mass of general practitioners want either. All the G.P.s to whom I have spoken since that meeting in Manchester have displayed a sense of shame at the whole tenor of the resolutions that were passed there.
A very great Canadian physician and, I believe, a bit of a philosopher, Sir William Osler, once wrote:
Medicine arises out of the primal sympathy of man with man, out of the desire to help those in sorrow, need and sickness.
That, I am sure, represents, far more accurately than any ill-considered resolutions carried at Manchester last week the attitude of the vast majority of general practitioners to their work.
Anyhow, it is on that assumption, that a Labour Minister of Health would approach this whole problem. Far too many Conservative Ministers have been content to pay lip service to the idea that the family doctor is the cornerstone of the National Health Service, but taking no action to modernise general practice or to improve the lot of the family doctor.
I know what the right hon. Gentleman will say in winding up the debate. He will point, of course, to the Fraser Working Party, which he set up earlier this year, and he will tell us that all these things are being urgently discussed with the profession. What I should like him to tell us is why the Government waited 10 years before setting these negotiations in motion. The need had been there for many years, and it was a pressing need. Now we have this belated action, taken just a few months before the General Election, and that is a fact the significance of which will not be lost upon the doctors. The general practitioners have lost all confidence in the Conservative Party and the great majority of them know that their only hope lies in a change of Government, and when I say that I


mean a very large proportion of those who normally support the party opposite.
I want to say this, in conclusion, and I want to say it as unequivocally as I can. I believe that a comprehensive Health Service is unthinkable and impossible if it is not based on the solid foundation of general practice. After all, it is only the family doctor who can see the patient in the round and can treat the whole man against his social and his family background. It is the family doctor who has the responsibility for continuous care. He it is who deals with more than 90 per cent. of the sickness which arises. He is literally the front line of defence. The family doctor can hardly be expected to trust a Government and a party which have so supinely sat for 10 years while general practice has been running steadily down hill, recruitment has been falling off, a sense of isolation growing, and status dwindling, without—at least until the eleventh hour and very near the fifty-ninth minute—attempting even to discuss the problem, let alone to find a solution to it.
The G.P.s are demanding, above all, the tools with which to do a better job for the patients and for the nation, and by now they know that only a Labour Government are likely to provide them.

4.12 p.m.

Dame Edith Pitt: I can agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said in his speech, in what I may call its first three chapters, because I think that he dealt very reasonably and very quietly with some of the issues in the minds of most of us when we think about the family doctor, but some of the points he made about changes which a Socialist Government would contemplate and possibly make in the position of the general practitioner in the National Health Service seemed to me to point more and more to clawing the doctors fully into the State service, and I have no doubt, to quote the hon. Gentleman's own words, that that is a fact the significance of which will not be lost upon the doctors.
I should like to begin what I have to say on this subject with a reference to the Gillie Report on the family doctor,

because I think that it is such a valuable and comprehensive document. It gave me pleasure to read it when first it came out, and I reread it yesterday in readiness for this debate. It is written with sympathy and with humanity. One of the things I like most about it is that it offers a model of how to give information without the mystique which so often surrounds documents connected with the medical world.
I liked, too, the humility with which the subject of the need of the service to the patient was approached. Indeed, I would wish to congratulate all those who contributed to this Report and particularly those who wrote it. I liked the words in the introduction referring to personal medicine:
our faith in its value.
It is an important thing that the general practitioners still have faith in the value of personal medicine and still want it to continue to extend and to succeed.
One should note that some time ago my right hon. Friend said that the National Health Service revolves round the family doctor. That is the answer to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North. The contribution of the family doctor to the National Health Service—I scarcely have need to remind hon. Members in this House, because I am sure that they all agree—is very much valued by the members of the public who use it. The great majority of them are full of praise for the doctor and the service which he gives. Of course, there are criticisms from time to time, and we have all heard them, about doctors who do not come promptly when summoned, doctors who do not keep promises to come one week later, doctors who do not tell patients enugh about what is wrong with them and their children. But all this is a minor part, and I would repeat that this service is valued by the public.
I would not want to ignore the service which preceded the National Health Service, because although I do not want the pre-1948 days ever to come back again I think it right to say that many good family doctors in those days gave extremely good service, and particularly to families like my own, who never had any money but a large number of children. The doctors varied their charges according to their patients' needs


and did not demand them of those who could not afford to pay; if one could not pay one was not charged. I think that these old family doctors deserve thought from us when discussing the present situation.
I turn from that to the National Health Service and the introduction of the comprehensive service with the availability of free medical care to all members of the community as distinct from those of us who were insured persons prior to 1948. This, of course, is the reason why the service has been much more widely called upon; and again, to quote the Gillie Report:
the increased load is the central problem in general practice today.
This is true, and it remains so, but what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North omitted to point out was the fact that efforts have been made by the Government to increase the number of general practitioners in the Service to ease the load. I think that it is correct to say that since 1951 an additional 3,500 general practitioners have been recruited to this part of the Service, an increase of 18 per cent. This, too, has been accompanied by a reduction in the under-doctored areas, the areas where there really are far too many patients for the doctors available. Again, I am not making a political point of it, but it is confirmed by the Gillie Report, as hon. Members will see if they like to look at Table V in it.
The question now before us is: what must be done to relieve this increased load to which I have referred? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the answer, at least in part, is more doctors, but here again, the Government have already taken action. One new medical school is to be established, and there are to be extensions to other medical schools, and I have already referred to the increase in the number of existing doctors.
Another part of the answer is to make better use of these highly skilled members of the community, to make the fullest use of their training, and not dissipate it upon doing work which others can do for them. It is important, too, in this context to remember the needs of the patients. In improving the doctors' lot, and relieving the load, we ought always to have before us the aim of

bringing up to the highest standard the quality of medicine in general practice.
I know that there is concern about pay. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a secondary issue, but I think that it is in the minds of most doctors. I appreciate, and think it perfectly natural, that all doctors should desire an increase in their pay—who would not? In fact, they have already had increases, and it is important to put on the record that their remuneration has increased by over 100 per cent. during the period of a Conservative Government.
I know that there is criticism of the pool system and I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. But it was the deliberate choice of the doctors that their method of remuneration should be fixed in this way in order that they might avoid becoming salaried servants of the State. The criticism was spelt out well by the hon. Gentleman. I would reduce it to one sentence. The doctors say that the more they do the less they get. I think that this is the doctor's dilemma.
This method of being paid out of a central pool confines all doctors to one level. It does not permit of any career structure such as we have in hospitals. It does not permit of any extra payment for good work. I am sorry that the £500,000, which the Royal Commission suggested should be made available to recognise good work, has never been used. I suppose that the money has gone back to the Treasury. What a pity. It was not used, I understand, because the doctors could not agree on the method of selection, and which of their number should have the extra pay for distinguished extra service. Nevertheless, I do not think it impossible to find a method of recognising meritorious service.
Another point, to which the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North did not refer but which I hear about from doctors, is the feeling which exists regarding the goodwill compensation for their practices which was agreed in 1948. A sum was fixed of which they will get the benefit when they retire, and in the meantime interest is paid on that sum, I cannot remember whether at 2½ per cent. or 2¾ per cent. The older doctors are concerned that an asset which represented £3,000 or £4,000 in 1948 represents much less today, but even though doctors may feel that this asset has diminished in


value, surely that is offset by the fact that they participate now in a pension scheme, which was not before available to them, and they are building up pension rights.
The greatest complaint from the doctors is about lack of time, and this point was made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. Doctors have no time for wider interests, which is necessary if they are to give the best service. They have no time for research, in which some may be interested. There is no time to attend refresher courses and to contribute to hospital work, which many doctors would like to do and which would prove useful in their general practice. There is no time for them to serve in other ways, perhaps on medical boards or by doing factory work.
The claims on the time of a doctor are many and one of the most frequent of their complaints is the amount of time they have to spend on writing out certificates. I am not sure whether doctors would like all certificate work to be taken from them, because they charge for the provision of those certificates which are not part of their terms of service. However, the making out of certificates is a time-consuming job.
Another task which has increased enormously since the introduction of the Health Service—and happily so—is the amount of time which doctors give to immunisation. This is a form of insurance, but it still takes time. There is the increased burden of looking after the elderly people in the community, who make heavy demands on the time of the doctors. In some cases early discharge from hospital calls the family doctor into service. What irks doctors most is late messages. To use their own expression to me, this "really niggles". They dislike mesages coming in at all hours when they have a general rule that messages should be delivered before 10 a.m.
That is understandable, but let us also consider the position of the patient. A mother with children who fall ill becomes worried about them and needs reassuring. Often that is the reason why there is a late message asking the doctor to call. It often happens that a child's illness develops and grows worse during the day. None of us would wish there to be any lack of attention in respect of such things.
Doctors dislike having to make unnecessary visits, by that I mean visits in respect of trivial things. Sometimes they are called out to deal with trivial things. One doctor remarked to me that patients treated their doctors as though they were shops. A doctor to whom I spoke yesterday, and who happened to be on Sunday duty, had been called out twice before I spoke to him, once to a woman who had been confined and had discharged herself from hospital. Her husband rang up the doctor and asked him to call to ensure that the wife was all right. Another call was to a family which had returned from holiday the day before. The children were unwell and so a Sunday visit from the doctor was expected. In some cases requests for visits are not very reasonable.
I am glad that at the conference at Manchester, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, doctors said publicly that they would support the retention of prescription charges. Many doctors have thought this privately, but have not said so. This seems to me to be a good thing. Doctors may regard prescription charges as a deterrent, but if a contribution is made by way of a prescription charge—most people can afford 2s. and those who cannot are cared for—more money is available to be devoted to other aspects of the Health Service. What is of prime importance is that under the present system no limit is placed on what a doctor may prescribe for a patient, so I think it right that doctors should support prescription charges.
I was much less happy about the suggestion at the Manchester conference of consultation charges and I was glad of the assurance given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend that such a charge is not being contemplated by the Government. To impose one would be a retrograde step. We should be going back to the conditions which obtained in the days before 1948.
What can be done to help solve the problem created by the demands on the time of the doctors? I agree with the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North that an appointments system would help. I am told by doctor friends who run such systems that the time occupied by patients visiting the surgery can be cut down if people know that they are able to come at a specific time. This system


also allows the doctor a longer period to talk to patients. My doctor friends say that the number of visits to patients is cut down, because, apparently, a patient who knows that he can come to the surgery at a specific time will make an effort to go to the surgery instead of calling for the doctor.
Many patients, or their relatives, are in the happy position of owning a car, so it is possible for more visits to be made to the surgery, which saves a lot of time. The existence of cars has a reverse effect for doctors who practise in large towns. One of their complaints is that while, in pre-war days, they could reckon on eight visits an hour, now, because of traffic difficulties, and time lost in finding somewhere to park their car, the number of visits is cut down to five an hour.
Another way in which we could help would be by the introduction of a rota system in which doctors deputise for each other, thus enabling their colleagues to take time off and lead some kind of family and social life, as they are fully entitled to do. It is important that a doctor should keep in touch with the community.
I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on group practice, but I would not go up to as many as six or eight. My view is that about four is the right number if we are to keep the personal service. From what I have seen of group practice, I like it very much, because I think that it enables a better standard of service; it means good accommodation including an examination room and it is appreciated by the patients. The difficult thing in extending group practice is finance, but I would hope that with the help of loans available, and with more ancillary staff, we could see developments in group practice, although I wonder whether it is practicable for rural areas and the single-handed doctor.
I am sure that all these three points are being considered by the Working Party. I wonder whether it might not also consider inducements for certain areas, because although the under-doctored areas are fewer in number, the further North one goes the more difficult it is to find applicants for vacancies, and until we have more qualified doctors in the service I wonder whether

it is necessary, for instance, for the Working Party to consider offering some kind of weighting for doctors who will go to the areas in the Midlands and, even more so, in the North.
I make one other point in trying to help the doctors to make the fullest use of their time and service for us, and that is that we ought to see in what ways we can further educate patients. I should like to see much more emphasis on maintaining good health. I sometimes think that we get the wrong angle from television programmes on this question of health. They pander to the morbid interest, the serious accident or serious illness, instead of encouraging people to value the tremendous boon of positive good health. Therefore, I would hope that the television authorities might consider more programmes dealing with health education, with physiology and more family doctor talks.

Mr. Julian Snow: In British practice, not American.

Dame Edith Pitt: British talks—I take the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
I remember how Lord Hill, when he gave talks on the radio, did much to break down the mystique which I referred to earlier and talked to people about the advantages of good health, and how welcome were those lovely, warm, treacly tones of his. He is still spoken of nostalgically by the people who heard him, and I should like to see something on these lines.
In reflecting on the tripartite arrangements in the National Health Service I come again to the Gillie Report, which says:
… many family doctors still fail to appreciate the value of the public health service and the help that it could give them in the work of their practices.
This is very important. Over the years, liaison with the local authorities and the general practitioners has, I know, grown and I was very interested to learn that in the City of Oxford, for instance, every health visitor maintained by the local authority is attached to one or more medical practices in that city. That is a good thing in creating liaison and keeping the three parts of the Service knit together.
In the City of Birmingham we have made good progress in seconding health visitors to doctors. We are short of health visitors, but they are attached on a sessional basis of one or two sessions a week. The district nurses in Birmingham are similarly being attached to the doctors' service where the accommodation allows this to be done. I am not even sure whether this is legal. I think that the Act says that the district nurses or home nurses should work in people's homes; but, nevertheless, this is a welcome development, by providing the doctors with extra help and assistance and by the doctors themselves making contact with the local authorities
I know why the health centres did not succeed in early days, when the doctors, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, had a marked reluctance to take part. It was because they thought that they would lose their independence to the local authority and the local medical officer of health. I think that there is a change coming about that, but the more the services can be integrated and the more each part can help the other the better the quality of the service that the patient receives. I should like to see close liaison between the local authority and the family doctor in the interest of the doctors themselves and their patients.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: There was a point at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) when I thought that I should find myself in violent disagreement with her, as on the previous occasion, when we debated hospitals. As she progressed with her speech I found myself probably more in agreement than disagreement. I regret that she rather spoilt what was otherwise a rather appealing case by referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and inferring that by the proposals which the Labour Party would put forward there was the clear intention, as she put it, to "claw" into the National Health Service a State salaried medical service through the G.P.s.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, said precisely the oppo-

site. I can only think that the hon. Lady's mind is so warped or prejudiced against this Service that she was bound to infer that this was the intention of the Labour Party.
It is rather fortunate that we have this opportunity of spending a couple of hours on discussing the family doctor service. We have had many health debates in this House, but, generally speaking, they have neglected the general practitioner and we have concentrated more on the Service as a whole, especially as it relates to the hospital services, and overlooked the fact that the G.P., is really the fundamental basis of the Service.
Those of us who have contacts with the profession will know that they, at least, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have grounds for believing that they are regarded as the forgotten factor in the Service and they have endeavoured by various means to put forward proposals to which they think we in Parliament ought to give due consideration and help to deal with the problems which face them.
I agree very much with the hon. Lady when she referred to refresher courses. It is a fact that where group practices have already begun to operate—I am not talking about group practices necessarily that operate under the aegis of the local authority, that is, on premises that the local authority might have already provided—where doctors have set themselves up in group practices, they have been able to arrange to go back into hospital at intervals for refresher courses. Friends of mine in the profession have told me on a number of occasions how valuable they find it to be able to go back to hospital, even for a short period, to bring themselves up-to-date with modern medical application.
Such opportunities will be considerably improved if we can encourage—I emphasise "encourage"; we do not want to press-gang doctors in the National Health Service—them to form themselves into groups. Then there will be further opportunities for refresher courses, to which the hon. Lady referred. I find a great desire, particularly among younger doctors, which perhaps is an encouraging sign, to go into group practice. It is understandable, and I do


not make any criticism of it, that the rather old-fashioned doctor, who has spent his working life in the Health Service, is not so inclined to go into group practice as the younger doctor.
One of the reasons why they are critical of the present Health Service is that they are more or less alienated from general hospital work. It has been said to me time and again that they would like to be able to follow their patients into hospital and have some sort of connection with their cases while they are undergoing surgical and other treatment there. I want the Minister to have second thoughts about the proposals foreshadowed in the Hospital Plan for abolishing, or allowing to go into disuse, some of the older hospitals. Of the hospitals built between 1800 and 1900 quite a number are comparatively modern, but are included in proposals for abolition. I appeal to the Minister to review this programme.
There are possibly a number of uses which could be found for these buildings. There may be some question of staffing them, but this is the kind of proposal which is put to me by young doctors now in practice. They say that these old hospitals could be retained and are much needed in the maternity service. Then doctors could follow cases into hospital. Provided the nursing services were available, the institution could be used and could perform an extremely valuable service in this way.
The original intention of the general practitioner service was to function from health centres. I offer the Minister an invitation to visit my city. Within the last two months a noble Lord, known to many of us as a doctor, came to Bristol and opened a new health centre. It has incorporated a group practice for general practitioners. I should like the Minister to see this building, because it is about the ideal for general practice.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member is kind enough to invite me to come to the city. I gladly accept for after the General Election.

Mr. Wilkins: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to come and have a cup of tea with me, because I live only about 400 yards from this group practice and I know something about it.
I have no doubt that the Minister has heard of this health centre, which was recently opened on the east side of the City of Bristol. The facilities are absolutely superb. They are the kind of facilities one hears about and for which the general practitioner is asking. He says, "This is the kind of place I want in which to do my job".
I often have a conversation with my own general practitioner. When we discuss health matters he frequently expresses the opinion that the value of his work and of other doctors in his group would be enormously increased if they had the services of a health visitor, or if they were able to engage a trained nurse to assist them. He says that this would be a means whereby the general practitioners could ensure follow-up of patients without necessarily having to visit them themselves. That seems to be a valuable suggestion. My doctor has said that it is of great assistance in the practice to have help on the clerical side, because this is a practice which initiated an appointments system from 1st January this year. Some of the patients were very apprehensive when the doctors in the group said that they would go over to an appointments system, but the system works well.
Probably by a slip, the hon. Lady forgot to point out that one of the principal reasons for the introduction of appointments systems was for avoidance of cross-infection in the surgery. One used to go into a surgery when suffering from arthritis and would sit among a number of people who were coughing and sneezing because there was an influenza epidemic. Probably after a few days one returned to the surgery, not only with arthritis but with influenza as well.
It has been suggested to me that if further help could be available, especially to group practices, doctors would be able to do what now they find through lack of time is impossible—to make research into the incidence of sickness among their patients and to see the general trend of illness in districts in which they work. From one part of the country to another there are great variations in the incidence of bronchitis, for example. My doctor has expressed the view that it would be


extremely valuable if a study could be made of the incidence of illness among the 6,000 patients who are on his group register.
This is only a very short debate and other hon. Members want to contribute speeches, so I shall not delay the House for more than a few moments longer. I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North for, at least, a review of the basis of remuneration for doctors. I agree with him that this is not the principal concern, but it is a very powerful secondary concern. There is much comment and even complaint about the way the pool system operates, especially in regard to mileage payments in rural areas. I suggest that it is time, perhaps by means of a Ministry committee, or a commission, to try to find a satisfactory basis on which general practitioners may be remunerated. There are odd people in every profession, but, generally, doctors are a most devoted body of people who try very hard to carry out their professional duties to the best of their ability because they believe it a duty to give good service to their patients.
We must try, by negotiation, to find a solution which is acceptable to both sides. In saying this, I want to make it clear that I by no means agree with all the proposals that are being put forward. Indeed, I do not believe that every doctor agrees with all the proposals, some of which are outrageous. I hope, however, that an acceptable and workable basis will be worked out by negotiation so that a proper system of' renumeration can be found.
This basis must, as I say, be acceptable to both sides and it must ensure that the Service goes on without interruption. I do not take too much notice of the threats that are sometimes made about the withdrawal of labour, and, despite some resolutions that are passed at meetings of doctors, I do not believe that the general body of G.P.s would wish to take such action. This does not mean that we should take advantage of their loyalty.
I hope that the Minister will assure us today that he will take the necessary action to try to reach an agreement with the profession on this difficult and intransigent problem.

4.52 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) that there are a great many odd people in all professions, even in this House. I congratulate him on the establishment in Bristol of the health centre to which he referred, which I gather is a great success. He will appreciate that he has a larger population than some districts and that it might be easier for that sort of system to work in his area than in some others. I was also glad that he referred to the older hospitals, because I intend to comment on this issue, particularly the cottage hospitals and the question of a salaried service or capitation service and its developments after a number of years of service.
We have in Britain the best general practitioner service in the world. There is nothing to touch it. The doctors in the service are the most selfless human beings in the whole of the Welfare State. A G.P. in single practice must work 365 days a year. Only if he has a partner is he able to take some holidays by the spreading of duties. If not, he must pay a locum if he is to have any time off at all. I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises the vital part which the G.P. plays in the National Health Service. The fact that he has spent so much time reconsidering the structure, pay and emoluments and other aspects of the Service indicates his great interest in it.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) opened the debate in his usual charming manner; so much so that I am tempted to say that in view of his excellent bedside manner he is in the wrong profession. He touched on four main points, and I wish to begin by referring to a fascinating book entitled "Family Ill-Health". Written by Robert Keller, it gives details of an investigation which he carried out into general practice. He comes to the conclusion that there is no real abuse in the Health Service and he concludes—and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt)—that television plays an important part in bringing people to the surgery.
He finds that ill-health in a family creates ill-health; that if one member of a family is in continual bad health that


places a strain on the whole family and results in further ill-health. He states that in many circumstances the G.P. needs more time to deal with his patients.
It is suggested in the Gillie Report that no G.P. should have more than 2,000 patients. This recommendation is made because of the rising population; the extension of time necessary to attend to the increased number of children under five years of age and the members of the older generation. Added to this is the fact that, thanks to the G.P., we have a longer expectation of life; for men now till 69 years and women till 74 years. In fact mortality and maternal mortality is an all time record, thanks to the G.P.
A great many old people live alone, particularly with the increased facilities being provided by way of one-bedroomed flats and small bungalows. These in themselves necessitate more visitations by G.P.s. Many mothers are now having babies at home, and in difficult confinements the local G.P. must be present the whole time. And since there are more old people, the G.P. must, if possible, be present when, regrettably, someone dies. Bearing all these things in mind, and remembering how invaluable the G.P. is to the National Health Service, I thank my right hon. Friend for the interest he has shown in the G.P. and trust that that interest will continue to be shown.
A great deal has been said about health centres and the question of group practice. It is interesting to note that both the United States and Russia have tried to urge that patients be treated by what are known as minor specialists working in poly clinics and hospitals. It is equally interesting to note that both of those countries are returning to the G.P. service. I am certain that we shall not go far wrong if we continue to encourage our G.P.s to continue to work our G.P. service, particularly since in other countries experiments in other spheres have not been as successful as at first might have been thought. The Porritt Report stated in paragraph 171 in regard to a general practitioner:
… A doctor in direct touch with patients, who accepts continuing responsibility for providing or arranging their general medical care which includes the prevention and treatment of any illness or injury affecting the mind or any part of the body.
There are 5 million accidents a year, and 40 per cent. take place in the home. We

are beginning to realise that part of the G.P.'s work is prevention. This probably means him being called out more often than at present—and this is one reason why G.P.s should have fewer patients.
Wastage is one of the great difficulties involved in the Service. A great number of doctors do their training and do not go into practice. With the increasing population there can be no doubt that the number of doctors will for a long time not keep pace with the rising population. Apart from the natural increase in population, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North pointed out, conditions in the Service are not attractive enough to secure more doctors.
I believe that the time has come when students taking their medical degrees and undergoing their training at the expense of the State, along with receiving grants, should perform some form of practice for the State. I am thinking, among others, of women who qualify and then get married—after having at the State's expense been trained as a doctor. I suggest that they should refund part of the money they have received and so allow others to be trained. I would exempt from this the individual who goes into the medical service of one of the developing countries because the expenditure on training for that man or woman would be equally justifiable. I say this because far too many doctors who receive their training at the expense of the State finally leave to join industry. In such circumstances they should in some way repay the State, at least to some extent, which paid for their original training.

Mr. Denis Howell: I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that her hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston suggested that the obligation is entirely to the State and, therefore, that they should pay up if they do not serve the State.

Miss Vickers: We are used to having arguments in this House—that is largely what it is for—and I do not mind whether it comes from that side or from behind me.
The average practice has 2,285 patients, but distribution is very uneven as so many places are considered more pleasant to live in. I should very much like to see a salaried service, which was referred to by the hon. Member for St. Paneras,


North. I have mentioned this subject in a previous debate, I have read through some of the evidence that has been given, and I realise that the majority of doctors are not in favour of a salaried service.
I think that a salaried service would be a great asset. Doctors would know exactly what they were to receive. I presume that they would receive payment during holidays, and when they were sick they could claim on expenses account. They would also have graduated promotion, and they would have pensions. The capitation system that we have tried for a considerable time has not been particularly successful, and a salaried system would provide far more chance of mobility for individual doctors themselves. Furthermore, it would provide a chance for the older doctors to continue work in the less difficult areas—perhaps the rural areas—when the work in the urban areas became too much for them to tackle.
Doctors might start on a fixed minimum salary, rising to a maximum after, say, ten years. There should be allowances for specialising in any particular subject—

Mr. Percy Browne: Would this proposal mean that a doctor would need to have a minimum number of patients before getting a salary at a certain level? How would the salary scale work with regard to the number of patients, which is one of the incentives today?

Miss Vickers: The average number of patients today is 2,285, and I think the salary could be fixed on the basis of a minimum of 2,000 patients.
In partnerships, we might have one partner specialising in midwifery, another in the mentally disturbed and another in the aged. One of the extra burdens put on the general practitioner results from the fact that the hospitals that were once called mental hospitals are now discharging patients much sooner, and those people need continuous supervision to keep them from returning to hospital again. In any case, the capitation system has not been particularly successful in attracting doctors, and I should like to hear my right hon. Friend's views on a salaried service.
If we are to retain the capitation system, the general practitioner's expenses, such as the cost of necessary equipment, should be refunded on production of an accountant's certificate. After all, consultants get all their equipment in hospital free of charge, and it is only logical that the general practitioner should be treated in the same way. Further, if we are to keep this system, we should have higher capitation fees when the doctor has been in the service for, perhaps, ten years or more. I cannot see why the State cannot issue equipment to the local practitioner through the local hospital committee.
In sparsely-occupied areas, general practitioners with small practices might work from time to time in the local hospitals for a fee, and local hospital committees might consider the idea of estimating for this type of contingency. This is particularly necessary in country districts. All general practitioners need more practitioner beds. I understand that a general practitioner now has less than one bed per head, and that includes both maternity and private pay beds.
General practitioners should also have more direct access to X-ray and pathological services, particularly in the country districts. I am thinking here of work relating to cervical smears and X-rays after a barium meal. A general practitioner can easily do a cervical smear if he has the right to deal with it himself in the pathological laboratory. The administration of an X-ray after a barium meal is of great importance, but in the Plymouth Hospital, for example, it is not now possible for a patient known to me to get X-ray treatment until November. That is a long time to wait for such a very important type of medical treatment.
If the general practitioner could have access to the hospitals, it would be of great benefit. Further, when my right hon. Friend is considering the building of new hospitals under the Hospital Plan, will he consider providing beds in what might be called general practitioners' annexes? It would be a very great advantage for them to have a number of beds in special annexes in new hospitals.
The G.P. has too much clerical work to do, and I have wondered whether it might not be possible to reduce the number of sickness certificates that are now


needed. Could not the general practitioner give one of these certificates when a man goes sick and give him another when he is fit. Is seems quite unnecessary to issue a sickness certificate every week for two or three months. It adds greatly to the doctor's clerical work, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion.
Again, where two, three or more doctors are working together, my right hon. Friend might consider attaching a nurse and a health visitor to that type of practice instead of to an area, so as to provide closer liaison between the public health team and the doctor. This would also probably encourage group practice.
What can my right hon. Friend offer doctors in the way of help with rent, wages, rates, running expenses and the cost of equipment? Only too often, the only ancillary help the doctor has is his wife—the general practitioner must by now be the only individual in the whole of our society who has no private life.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South on the subject of refresher courses. With the quick changes going on in medical knowledge, these are absolutely essential. I am quite certain that a doctor having this opportunity to take time off and learn more would be able to save many patients' having to go to hospital. If the individual patient knew that the general practitioner had gone on a refresher course in midwifery or any other section of the profession—and I understand that there are now more than thirty different sections—I do not think that the patient would consider so necessary the hospital treatment so many of them now demand. Patients would not ask for hospital treatment if they had more confidence that sufficient time could be given by a general practitioner to examination such as can be given by a consultant.
Patients are now discharged so much more quickly from hospital than previously that it is necessary for a general practitioner to visit them more often. Many diseases which used to be considered fatal can now be dealt with by home treatment, and this places extra responsibility on the home doctor. It is far less expensive for patients to be treated in their homes than in hospital, and we all know that hospitals are overcrowded.
This debate, therefore, is extremely important, because we are considering how we can help the general practitioner to give more time to the individual patient, whether in preventive medicine, the treatment of mental illness, or after-treatment following a stay in hospital, so as to reduce the strain on hospital accommodation. The hospital service is dependent upon the actions of the general practitioner who is the greatest figure in the whole of the National Health Service.
I did not vote originally for prescription charges, and I realise that the Opposition now say that they will abolish them. I also realise that at its meeting in Manchester recently the B.M.A. was against the abolition of prescription charges. I understand the reasons. The Association fears that there might be a great demand for such things as tranquillisers if charges were abolished, but if charges are to continue there should be some consideration for that section of the population who cannot afford to pay.
On previous occasions an hon. Friend and myself have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to urge on the British Medical Association that doctors should use distinctively coloured prescription forms so that those who cannot afford to pay need not pay the chemist on presentation of the form and later have to have the money refunded, as is the case now. If the Opposition intend to abolish the prescription charges there will be no need for this suggestion, but in view of the fact that doctors have come out so strongly in opposition I believe that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will find great difficulty if they try to abolish the charge.

Mr. K. Robinson: I suggest that the hon. Lady might be a little fairer to the British Medical Association. The Association has been opposing prescription charges strongly for ten years and has been in favour of them so far for seven days.

Miss Vickers: I understand that the Association is becoming nervous that right hon. Members opposite may come to power. The doctors knew that it was quite all right for them to oppose prescription charges while a Conservative Government were in office. The


Association now realises that its worst fears may be coming to fruition and it is trying to make its position clear. I want to make my view clear that if charges are to be maintained there should be some agreement to help those who are most in need.
I am certain that general practitioners appreciate the tremendous interest which my right hon. Friend has taken in them and their work and the number of efforts which have been made by the Government to arrive at a fair solution to the problem which worries most of us, that of ensuring that every one in the country receives adequate attention at home from the general practitioner who, I repeat, is the most valuable figure in the Health Service and to whom we should pay a tremendous tribute.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, although I did not agree with her when she advocated a State salaried service. I think that we would all agree that we are discussing a vocational profession. We sometimes tend to forget that though doctors vary in standard, in dedication and in ability, just as do members of other professions, most doctors initially became doctors because they wanted to heal the sick.
A large part of the fear felt by the general practitioner is that his status, his standing as a healer, is being devalued. Much of the fear of a State salaried service springs from the fact that doctors feel that they might become mere ciphers, mere people to sort out those who need aspirins, those who should be sent to hospital, or those who need a certificate. This is one of the problems which any Minister of Health, of whatever political colour, must face. It is the problem of restoring the confidence of general practitioners in their status in the profession and in the community as a whole.
Most doctors realise that by vocation, training and experience they are capable of giving greater service to the community than they are called upon to give. It is true that they are extended physically, but many of them are not extended mentally in their service to the

community. They could be extended, and want to be extended, far more than they are.
The most valuable service in medicine largely is that of the general practitioner. He has elected to give his individual service in a given area to patients in their own environment. He has made as much of an election as has the consultant. The specialist has elected to specialise in a given field. He specialises in a certain disease or certain class of patients, such as in geriatrics. He is concerned with a disease or a class far more than is the general practitioner who is concerned with giving individual service to each of his patients. As our knowledge of medicine increases and research enlarges the sphere of medical knowledge and the specialist is required to know more and more about less and less, so in a different kind of way the general practitioner is required to know more and more about more and more.
I am sure that we would all agree that we would make a great mistake if we allowed the general practitioner to feel, or continue to feel, that his status has been truly devalued. It is important to remember that the service which the general practitioner is able to render in treating people in his surgery or in their homes is much cheaper to the community than is the hospital service. We tend to forget that whereas we spend large sums of money on hospitals the service which the family doctor gives is cheaper and more efficacious in many cases than that which can be rendered by a hospital.
It must be remembered, also, that no consultant service can function as efficiently without the help of the general practitioner. Consultants have told me that among the most valuable help that they receive is a full and proper report from the general practitioner. The consultant sees the patient for the first time and knows nothing about the family background or the patient's idiosyncrasies and he is sometimes puzzled that the patient does not recover as he should do. This is where the general practitioner's report is of great value to the consultant.
We ask ourselves today whether the community is receiving the value which it should receive from the general practitioner. I think that the answer is "No". By and large, most doctors are overworked and they are over-fatigued


with routine and unnecessary work. Very often they complain, as they did at Manchester, that so much of their time is taken up by the apparently unnecessary patient; the patient who simply wants reassurance or, perhaps, wants to have a chat with his doctor.
I suppose that all of us, as Members of Parliament, know of constituents who come to us and, perhaps, at times create unnecessary trouble in this way, whereas the constituent with real problems is very hesitant to consult us. A doctor constantly faces this kind of thing. The more overworked he is, the more plagued he is with routine matters, the less does he feel able to deal with that kind of patient. One of the basic problems in our medical service today is that the doctor is working far too long hours and has to give too much time to routine work which could be done by others.
Many general practitioners are prevented from realising their full value to the community by the surroundings in which they work. There is not sufficient incentive for a doctor to improve his surroundings, to have an attractive surgery, and so on; and the family doctor is very often working in isolation from his fellows. This is not good, and there is no material inducement to him to give the even better service to the community.
Moreover, because the doctor is overworked he tends to send more and more people to hospital if he can—this is especially true in urban as opposed to rural areas—many people are in hospital unnecessarily. They could be better dealt with at home, with the assistance of the general practitioner, the health visitor, the district nurse, and so on, but they are sent to hospital, and this makes the hospital service overcrowded and needlessly expensive.
I come now to a few ways in which the service could be greatly improved. We are all concerned at the fairly low rate of recruitment to the profession today. The 10 per cent. cut has been restored, but many more doctors are needed here, and many more must be induced to stay here. As has already been pointed out, recently reported research discloses that about a quarter of those who qualified in British medical schools during the past 10 years have emigrated to one country or another. It is not enough, therefore, to train more

doctors or to induce more people to enter the profession. The conditions of medical service in this country must be made sufficiently attractive to persuade doctors to stay here once they are trained.
Here I completely disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport when she suggests that the State can demand that medical students who are trained as doctors shall stay here and render part of their service to the State. It is up to us to create the kind of country and the kind of service which induces them to stay here. There is no obligation as such on them to stay.
What could be done—and this has been advocated from both sides of the House today—would be to set up many more medical schools, particularly in those areas which are under-doctored. It is well known that doctors, having graduated, tend very often to set up practice in the areas in which they qualify. It can be shown statistically, I think, that most of them set up practice fairly near to the hospital centres in which they qualified. The under-doctored areas of the country could do with some medical schools of their own.
More students could be accommodated in the present medical schools. To take Wales, the country about which I know most, we have there one medical school only, the National School of Medicine, at Cardiff. But we have many very good hospitals and many very fine consultants in our hospitals in North Wales and West Wales. Part of the clinical work of students in Wales could be done in those hospitals so that the input and output of the medical school itself could be greatly increased, the clinical side of the National School of Medicine, at Cardiff, being, as it were, extended in this way. I am sure that something similar could be repeated elsewhere in the country, thus immediately increasing the number of people entering medical schools now even without any increase in the number of schools.
From my own experience, I know of many young men who want to get into medical school and who find it extremely difficult to do so today, although they are convinced that their vocation in life is to qualify as doctors and help to heal the sick. Once we have more doctors qualifying, it will be


necessary also to improve conditions here to persuade them to stay. Much has been made of the advantages of group practice, and I do not doubt that group practices are very important and much more attractive to many young practitioners. I can see the advantage of group practice to doctors more readily than I can see the general advantage to patients. I believe that much of the best service in medicine is given by the family doctor working alone. Nevertheless, the conditions in which such a doctor works are extremely unattractive to young men entering the profession today.
One way to improve matters would be to change the free-interest loan system for group practices improvements so that grants are given much as grants are given in agriculture, for instance, for the improvement of buildings and facilities. There is a very good case for giving grants to doctors to improve their surgeries and the facilities afforded to patients at their surgeries. If the Minister decided to limit himself even to the interest-free loan as at present, this system ought to be extended beyond group practices to individual practitioners so that they, too, could be entitled to the same facilities.
There must be far greater encouragement to doctors to improve their premises and conditions of work. I know very little of medical practice personally, save that I come into contact with it very often in my work in the courts, but in my family there are a number of doctors, in private practice, in the hospital Service, or teaching in university. I know that they constantly argue that there is no real incentive—except the feeling of vocation of a doctor—to improve his premises and make them attractive to patients. Indeed, the less one spends, the more one earns because of the way expenses are paid.
I know of a group practice in which three young doctors have spent a good deal of money, their own money and the Minister's by way of interest-free loan, making a very attractive surgery, with accommodation for a dispenser-receptionist—this is a rural practice—and offering appointments to every patient. Nevertheless, the doctors are out of pocket in doing this sort of thing. Per-

haps, in the course of time, they may get more patients, but it remains true that the doctor in the little back room in a back street is very often able to earn more money because of the way expenses are paid. There should be more encouragement particularly to young doctors to improve their premises and amenities.
I make again now the suggestion which I made in our last debate on medical services—it has been repeated today in a rather different form by other speakers—that we should in future develop our service so that the general practitioner becomes, virtually, the leader of a welfare team. Much of the work that a doctor performs could be equally well done by a nurse. Much of the work he does could be supplemented by the work of health visitors. It is very important that such people as nurses, health visitors and even welfare officers should be attached to practices.
This has been done already on an experimental basis. In the practice which I mentioned, a health visitor has been attached for some time now. We must regard the general practitioner as the keystone of our National Health Service edifice, looking upon him as the leader of a qualified team, as someone no longer working in isolation but as a qualified man free to devote more and more of his time to his own work. We must ensure that he is able to give the real benefit of his training and experience to patients who need it, relieving him of a great deal of the paperwork that he has to do, providing him with secretarial assistance, and so on.
That is the way in which we would improve the Health Service. This is far more important than arguments about how the general practitioner is to be paid. I regard him as being underpaid. The differentials between the general practitioner and the consultant are far too great. The general practitioner deserves far greater remuneration than he gets. Nevertheless, I am sure that even in his eyes the question of money is secondary to his status in society and the function that he is to perform. I do not think that we will ever encourage the right kind of people to come into general practice if the general practitioner feels that he has been reduced to the status of a cipher or of a sorting office.
My final plea to the Minister is that it is essential to bear in mind that medical practice in rural areas is considerably different from medical practice in urban areas. Whenever I listen to debates in the House of Commons on medical services, I, as coming from an entirely rural area, realise how different are the problems in large towns compared with the problems in the sparsely populated areas such as I represent.
In areas such as mine—and, fortunately, we are well favoured by our doctors—it is important to maintain the doctor's connection with the hospital service. The general practitioner hospital is extremely important in the rural areas. I beg the Minister to take care not to shut the rural hospitals simply on, as it were, a headage basis and to bear in mind the importance of the hopsital as a centre where local practitioners meet and get together. The hospital plays an important rôle in a rural community. It is necessary, above all, not to approach the problems of the National Health Service in the rural areas with an urban mind. What applies to the towns very often does not, or should not, apply to the country.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has, as always, made a good case with persuasiveness and moderation, and in large measure I do not disagree with him. The hon. and learned Member even managed to bring in agriculture. I used to think that doctors were rather like farmers and that whatever was done for them they still complained and were always in conflict with the needs and ideals of politicians.
I changed my mind earlier this year, however, when as the father of a young family I made great inroads into the time of a group practice when my children had measles, german measles, chickenpox and mumps in quick succession. As a result of my contact, I had a better appreciation of some of the difficulties which face even the group practice.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). It seemed to me that his speech was a recapitulation of his article yesterday in the Sunday Mirror, the newspaper which always mirrors the Socialist case so faithfully, up hill and down dale. I found it rather

depressing. I should have expected the hon. Member to come up with some even better ideas to try to improve the Health Service if he aspires to become Minister of Health in the unlikely event of our having a Labour Government in the autumn.
Even so, I agree with the hon. Member that whatever the rate of hospital building, however many nurses we recruit, the doctors undoubtedly form the cornerstone of the National Health Service and that we must have more and efficient doctors if that Health Service is to function satisfactorily. There is undoubtedly dissatisfaction among the majority of the family doctors, and it is becoming more widespread. I do not think that the public appreciate just how much the doctors are troubled about their conditions of work.
That dissatisfaction is not, however, as has been suggested by the Opposition, the fault of a Conservative Government. It is because of a general disenchantment which they are experiencing over the National Health Service. Indeed, far from what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, I believe that if a Labour Government were to win the next General Election the doctors would be even more disenchanted with the National Health Service after a period of time.
The personal element in medicine is of paramount importance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) that although some of the proposals put forward by the Opposition possess a lot of merit, they tend towards tighter State control of medicine and of individual practising doctors.

Mr. Denis Howell: Rubbish.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member will have an opportunity later to make his point. That is a personal view, and I believe it to be the case.
The Health Service is 16 years old and the majority of doctors working in it feel that it is getting out of date and needs major revision. I agree with that view, and I hope very much that the next Conservative Administration will make the necessary reforms.
We must, however, ask ourselves what is the basic problem of family doctors bearing in mind that there are 23,000 of


them. The family doctor certainly needs more money, as we have heard from speaker after speaker in this debate, and I imagine that he will get it soon as a result of the current negotiations. In many cases, the family doctor is underpaid, particularly when judged by the degree of responsibility which he holds in the community. His expenses have mounted and his duties have increased with the larger numbers of patients. His allowances and expenses are unrealistic. This is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that an overhaul is necessary. The present system is thoroughly incompetent and out of date, and I hope that something can be done in this direction.
Money is not, however, the main cause of the trouble and of the dissatisfaction. Many family doctors feel increasingly that they are the poor relation of the medical service, the poor relation of specialists and of surgons, some of whom are among the top-salary earners in the community. Family doctors see themselves more and more as the writers of prescriptions and the issuers of absentee certificates. When there is any doubt, they usually refer the case automatically to the local hospital.
For many doctors, the art of doctoring seemed to go out of the window the day they left the hospital service or the day they entered a large practice with too many patients. They become the prisoners of surgery routine and they are the captives largely of their own telephone. The surgery routine is something of a frustrating charade. The doctor with a large practice nowadays finds himself faced with a waiting room which is crammed with patients except, ironically enough, on a Saturday morning, when many people are not seeking time off from work. If the family doctor is to get out on his rounds, he must get through his waiting room of patients quickly. He must rely on his sixth sense to be able to spot the person who has turned up with what is fundamentally a basic serious illness as distinct from the person who merely eats too much or who "swings the lead" and wants a few days off from work.
In fairness to patients, it must be said that they complain that they have hardly

time to explain their symptoms during a consultation before the next patient is called in. Despite this, and despite the fact that there is a certain amount of malingering and hypochondria among patients, there is a danger that after a time the doctor will find himself getting more and more out of date in trying to keep up with too large a number of patients. In addition, it must be borne in mind that, despite the malingering, according to a recent report one person in ten in the community suffers from some form of basic serious illness and, unless he gets treatment, will become much worse or may die.
The doctors themselves are partly responsible—I do not say this is too critical a vein—for the way things have gone because of their own indecision and because of their imperfect organisation and the representations which they make concerning the Health Service. I think, also, that some of the patients are to blame for what is happening. The National Health Service has made doctors more freely available to the community than ever before. This is right, as I am sure, both sides of the House agree. But the doctors' service has not grown to cope with the increased commitments and many doctors feel, quite rightly, that the service is being abused by the general public. Selfish people will often call in a doctor when they could easily have made the trip to his surgery and have explained their symptoms to him in the consulting room. One doctor told me recently that he estimates that five out of every ten visits that he makes to patients are unnecessary because these people could easily have gone to the surgery and have taken the burden off his shoulders.
The doctor more than anybody else knows that we are becoming something of a nation of hypochondriacs. We think more about our health than we used to do, and perhaps this is because of the stress and strain of modern living. It may be partly due to the concentration by television, on medical matters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said. Some people today arrive at the consulting room with a self-diagnosis of what is wrong with them. Perhaps there is a morbid tendency aroused in people through the concentration on medicine on the television screen.
I am not surprised at the B.M.A. vote last week on the question of charges. This is mainly because they fear that the abuse of the service is growing and needs checking. I do not believe that they seriously consider that a charge should be imposed, or that a Conservative Government would impose, a charge on patients. I see that in his article yesterday the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said that he did not think that the B.M.A. vote was a fair reflection of the view of the majority of doctors in this country. I believe that it is the view and that they hold it because they feel that the service is coming into great abuse.

Mr. K. Robinson: What evidence has the hon. Member that the abuse of the service is growing? I have been able to discover none whatever.

Mr. Smith: Like the hon. Member, I am not a qualified medical practitioner, but I am told by people who are that time and again people come to them quite unnecessarily, that their waiting rooms are unnecessarily crowded, that on the whole there is a tremendous amount of abuse in prescriptions and that this abuse will certainly grow if we abolish prescription charges. I believe that if we get rid of prescription charges there will be a gross wastage of drugs and that this will be a severe cost to the State.
There are a number of conclusions which one can draw from this discussion. The doctor's biggest problem is not money, although money comes into it; his biggest problem is the heavy and increasing amount of work which he is required to do and the extra time which he needs in which to keep up to date. In fact, he can ill afford the time and seldom gets an opportunity to do so. A tremendous number of technical journals reach the doctor and are thrown straight into the wastepaper basket because he has no time to read them.
Some family doctors are using out-of-date drugs because they are not sufficiently up to date to know the new drugs which have been introduced and which are more effective. It is more important than ever that family doctors should keep abreast of developments because of the rapid advance in techniques being made over the whole field of medicine.
What are the answers to the doctor's problems? Some have been suggested today. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North suggested that the only way to cure the trouble is to have a Labour Government. I will not be equally political and say that the only way to cure it is to continue to have a Conservative Government. The doctors must help us to put their own house in order, and we need a new streamlining of the National Health Service. First, we need more doctors; we are all agreed about that. I am glad that steps are being taken to stimulate the recruitment of doctors.
We also need doctors with shorter patient lists, and we want doctors to have fewer patients without suffering any cut in their remuneration. We need more group practices, not only because it is easier and better for the family practitioner to get time off and arrange his holidays but because from the medical point of view there is extremely good value in group practices, with the possibility of on-the-spot second opinions for the patient whose illness raises a query and the possibility of internal consultation. A group practice also gives the patient the chance of having a different doctor if he thinks that his own doctor is not very good. When he telephones for his doctor he may well find that one of the other partners visits him.
We must have diagnostic clinics which can take over some of the work of the hospitals in discovering what is wrong with patients whose illness is not straightforward. These diagnostic clinics could be run by general practitioners, and group practices can play a part here. In due course, when there are sufficient doctors, I should like to see regular medical overhauls for every member of the community. Every person on a doctor's list should have a complete check-up every year or so under that group practice. This would be a definite step forward in helping preventive medicine, and I hope to see it introduced later.
Parliament must soon make up its mind what sort of medical service it wants during the remaining years of the 20th century. This country has always been in the forefront in the practice of medicine. As we approach the


twentieth year of the National Health Service, we need a new approach, not only from the point of view of the doctor but from the point of view of the patient.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: It has been a long time since a young Member of the House has regaled us with what I can describe, I hope not offensively, as such a senile view of politics and medicine as we have heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). For him to castigate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) with failing in an article in the Sunday Mirror to produce any new ideas, when he himself had produced almost every cliché ever written in any newspaper in the last 20 years and at the end of it had offered no new ideas at all, seems deplorable.
I deplore what he said, and what the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) said, about prescription charges. Generally, there has been a very constructive line of thought throughout the debate, but the hon. Lady has one great distinction—she was in office when the Government doubled the prescription charges. She currently supports the line of thought which she then pursued at the Ministry of Health.
I cannot understand this dichotomy in the thinking of Conservative Members. If it is wrong to charge patients when they visit their doctor, it must be equally wrong to charge them for the medicines which are prescribed on a visit to the doctor. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick argued that one of the great failures of the National Health Service was to impose a tax on the sick, which is what prescription charges are—

Mr. A. R. Wise: Who invented them?

Mr. Howell: Prescription charges were first imposed by a Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Members have become so obsessed with their own propaganda that they do not know that they were the people to impose prescription charges.

Dame Edith Pitt: rose—

Mr. Howell: I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have finished this historical account of prescription charges.
The beginning was in the Korean War. During that war the international and national economy were disturbed to such an extent that our late and esteemed colleague Mr. Hugh Gaitskell—who specifically said at the time that it was for this purpose only—said that it was necessary to mobilise the whole economy of the nation to fight the offensive of Communism and the disturbing effect which this had on our balance of payments. For that purpose alone, as he said at the time, he introduced a Bill which would enable certain charges to be imposed. But a Tory Government imposed them. Neither Mr. Hugh Gaitskell nor any other Minister ever imposed a single prescription charge. I am quite willing, having given this history, to have a confrontation with the hon. Lady.

Dame Edith Pitt: The hon. Member has made the point which I was trying to persuade him to put on the record—that the power to make prescription charges was made by his own party.

Mr. Howell: For what it is worth, I give that away. Hugh Gaitskell, who never did anything without explaining it clearly, specifically said that it was for the purpose of the Korean War. The Korean War ended in the early 'fifties. This coincided with the arrival of a Conservative Government, who, if they had accepted Mr. Hugh Gaitskell's philosophy, should also have accepted his remedy, which was to end the provision when the emergency had passed.
I turn now to the evils of prescription charges. I ask any hon. Member opposite to justify their imposition upon people suffering from Parkinson's disease or on diabetics. I am the chairman of a very large hospital in Birmingham which has a Parkinson's disease clinic. It is a very terrible illness, and, unfortunately, medical science cannot cure it, but it can keep it reasonably under control. Every time one of these sick persons goes to the clinic, it means he has to take away a prescription bearing four, five or six items in order to keep him going.
These are people who must be among the worst off financially in the community, certainly from the health point of view, and because of a Conservative Government they have to meet this charge of 8s., 10s. or 12s. or even 14s. per week or fortnight every time they take a prescription to a chemist's shop. Is there a single Tory Member who will justify that? Not one. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that one cannot justify that. Nor can one justify the charge for the diabetic.
While the responsibility is originally that of the Tory Party, it becomes a national responsibility as and when the nation decides to endorse the system. I make a simple and political point which is justified, that anybody who votes Conservative wishes to impose a tax on the sick of the nation. It is a simple proposition, and I believe it is true.
I want to turn now from heady political points. I do not know what is amusing the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise).

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he like to know—

Mr. Howell: I was just dealing with the hon. Member for Rugby when the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) rose. I cannot deal with two hon. Members at the same time. The hon. Member for Rugby seems to find it amusing that people suffering from Parkinson's disease have these charges imposed upon them.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I might read to the hon. Member what Lord Attlee said in October, 1949:
We propose to make a charge of not more than 1s. for each prescription under the National Health Service. The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists, of which there is evidence which has for some time troubled my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind when making his suggestions.

Mr. Howell: This illustrates Tory mentality. Because I told the House what Mr. Hugh Gaitskell said, the hon. Gentleman decided to find out what Lord Attlee

had to say about the matter. Whatever Lord Attlee or Mr. Hugh Gaitskell said on the subject, even bearing in mind the quotation just read by the hon. Member about the suggestion of a 1s. prescription charge, the fact is that the Labour Government, under Mr. Attlee, did not impose a 1s. prescription charge or any prescription charge. [Interruption.] It is no good the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying that we were driven out of office. His hon. Friend has quoted from a speech made in 1949. We did not go out of office until 1951. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's remark does not square up with what his hon. Friend has quoted.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this. The principle of making these charges was first introduced and legislated for by a Labour Government, not for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has given the House but for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has told the House about. Whether or not those charges were imposed is a matter of history. The present Leader of the Opposition was one of those who resigned from the Labour Government at the time largely because he thought that these moves were unnecessary cuts in the social services, to quote his own words. My feeling is that it is quite unprofitable for the hon. Member to pursue this line of argument.

Mr. Howell: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is unprofitable for me to pursue this line, but it is a very late conversion, because we have already had three Tory Members talking about it, and they were not stopped by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He obviously feels that it is all right for Tories to talk about prescription charges but it is morally indefensible for Socialists to talk about them.
The short point is that 1949, the very time mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, was the year when the Korean War broke out, and that was what brought this matter to a head. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby sits there shouting all the time. If he has something to say, will he get up and say it?

Mr. Wise: I was expressing the view that, whatever the hon. Member may say, he cannot know better than the Labour Prime Minister at the time, who announced the exact object of these charges. His very intelligent and brilliant mind is not as brilliant as all that.

Mr. Howell: I apologise to the House. It is clear that I ought not to have sat down and allowed the hon. Member to intervene. My point is that the great argument which took place in the Labour Party and the nation was bound up in an increase in defence expenditure brought about by the Korean War and a very greatly changing international situation. Mr. Hugh Gaitskell said that it was entirely to do with the additional burden imposed on the economy by the Korean situation.
To bring ourselves up to date, the question is: what are the Tories going to do about it? It seems to me that to impose this tax on the sick is a disgrace to a civilised society. One thing which has come out of the debate—I am sure that it will be read outside with interest —is that the next Labour Government will get rid of the charges but that the Conservative Government will go from strength to strength and no doubt impose further burdens on the sick.
I turn to the question of a salaried service. I agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said about this. I take issue with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), both of whom said that they are firmly opposed to a salaried service. But we have got a salaried service. The fact that we refer to a capitation fee does not matter. The moment one puts a limit on the number of patients that a doctor can have by telling him that he can have 3,500 patients at 20s. 6d. or 35s. 6d., whichever of the two figures one picks, it is a very simple calculation to work out what his income or salary is. More nonsense is talked about a salaried service than anything else in medicine. We have a salaried service, and we ought to make it respectable and acknowledge that it is a salaried service. Then we could move from that point to ensure that it

was a decent and adequate salary, and all the other things that we want could flow from that.
I agree, that questions of status and prestige are involved. People have spoken kindly about general practitioners and said that money is not the root of all their discontent, but we know that at the bottom it jolly well is and that all the questions of prestige and status mean nothing compared to remuneration. They need a decent salary, and there is no reason why they should be ashamed about it. After all, to become a doctor a man has to spend about seven years in a university and a hospital. It is a longer training than almost any other person has to undergo, and at the end of the time the doctor is entitled to a decent and adequate salary and to all the aids that we can give him so that his expertise, skill and professionalism can be used to the best advantage of society.
One difficulty, of course, is that they do not want a full-time salaried service. We could get over this by offering a very good salary—the Review Body or some other organisation could look at commensurate salaries in other professions—which would be paid for a notional seven-eighths of their time, thus allowing one-eighth of the time for the doctors to do their police or insurance work which has to be done and which they want to do. This would get round the psychological difficulties—which is all they seem to me to be—about the question of a salaried Service.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North made the point that there is no question of imposing anything like this on the profession, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston did not appreciate that. We hope that the doctors will accept our proposal, but it could not be introduced until the profession decided to accept it of its own free will.
What are the reasons for wanting to build up the general practitioner service? We cannot divorce consideration of this from consideration of the load upon the hospital service. Those of us who work in hospitals know that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said that G.P.s should be able to go into hospitals to follow up their cases.


I am not sure what that means. As chairman of a hospital, I cannot quite see what the G.P. could do if he followed a case into hospital because, on entry, a case automatically comes under the charge of a consultant, the registrar and probably a houseman. It is difficult to see how one could change that fundamental pattern.

Mr. Wilkins: I hope that I was not implying that the G.P. should follow every case into hospital. Nevertheless, there are some things of great interest to the G.P. and from which he could profit by seeing certain patients under treatment.

Mr. Howell: I take the point and, speaking again as chairman of a hospital, I can cay that I do not know any hospital or consultant who would not welcome the interest of a G.P. in following a case into hospital. I can only speak with certainty of my own hospital but we would welcome a G.P. coming in to discuss a case.
What we need is a link between the G.P. service and the hospital service whereby we could make available to the G.P. three things—a radiological service, a pathological service and a central sterile syringe and pack service. This would be a boon to G.P.s. In my own hospital we are trying to give a radiological service but it is almost physically impossible to do so. The load on the radiological service is already very heavy. We intend to extend the department but we are not helped by the fact that, in the latest hospital plan, provision which was shown in an earlier plan has now disappeared.
However, we shall do our best to provide a radiological service. If the Minister wants to stop the frustrations of G.P.s he could help the hospitals to provide these three things to general practitioners which I have mentioned. They would be of great help to G.P.s.
I am glad that doctors' wives have been mentioned. Apart from the wives of M.P.s they are the main unpaid public servants in our society. I do not suppose that we shall ever get pay for the wives of M.P.s, particularly as we cannot get proper pay for M.Ps. But in many ways the problems of G.P.s and M.P.s are similar. Everyone recognises that we are doing a good job dirt cheap but no one

is willing to come forward and pay what we are worth.
I believe that doctors' expenses should be paid. I understand that the Ministry is being niggardly about what it suggests for ancillary help and is offering about £300. What can one provide for that these days? What a group practice needs is a qualified nurse and a secretary cum receptionist, quite apart from the money provided for the group practice through the National Health Service. One of the reasons for encouraging group practice or health centres is that there are not enough trained nurses to go round under the present system. While it might be possible to provide a nurse for each group practice or health centre it is impossible to provide one nurse per G.P.
I have made careful inquires of my own G.P. I find that there is a real feeling of grievance about documentation. He and his colleagues have done a little research for me and they say that, if there were a simple change in the National Insurance Regulations, they could cut down the number of people coming to their surgeries by 40 to 45 per cent.
It seems that no G.P. can give a certificate under the National Insurance Regulations for more than one week, even though he knows that the man hobbling into his surgery with a broken ankle, for instance, has no possibility of returning to work for weeks to come. If that patient were in hospital care, the hospital could issue a long-term certificate. Why on earth cannot the G.P. be put in the same position? If we get nothing else out of this debate I hope that the Minister will look at this and try to make it possible for G.P.s to issue long-term certificates in cases where it is warranted.
We can surely trust the G.P.s. We know that they are doing wonderful work. They can surely be trusted to say whether a man will be unfit for work for a certain number of weeks ahead. This would be a substantial advantage in their daily practice.
Little else needs to be said about salaries. It is a crazy system that puts a premium on inefficiency. I would only add that, when we employ G.P.s in the hospital service, then what they are paid for this help comes out of the global sum available to the doctors as a whole, and that is ludicrous. If a


G.P. gives up what time he has available to help out in the casualty department of a local hospital, that correspondingly reduces the global sum available to the profession as a whole. That is utterly wrong.
We need some variety in medicine. Above all, we need to raise up again the hopes of G.P.s along the lines I have mentioned. The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that executive councils should play a more positive part is excellent. That is the correct approach to the problem. Those G.P.s who are fortunate enough to practice in health centres are in effect being subsidised, usually by the local authorities. Certainly they are in Birmingham, where they use the ground floor of a high block of flats. Here again there is an inconsistency which is indefensible.
If a principle is at stake, and it is necessary to have G.P.s in group practices or health centres, then financial assistance must apply to all who are in group practice or in health centres. If we can get their salaries right and their position vis-à-vis the hospital service adjusted, the doctors themselves will have to do some readjustment and rethinking.
It is a matter of regret to me to have to tell the House that it is the experience of some consultants in my hospital that the night service is nothing like as good as it should be. One can understand that, after a very hard day such as we have heard about, doctors do not like being fetched out two or three times in the middle of the night. But that seems to be simply a matter of organisation. Why cannot general practitioners make sure that one of their number goes on comparatively late in the evening and does night work, so that the others can arrive fresh in the morning?
What we are finding more and more—and the Ministry will have to note it—is an unfortunate tendency by a minority of doctors—and I repeat, a minority—who are fetched out at night but who, instead of visiting their patients, send for an ambulance and have them packed off to hospital. We have come across some of these cases and we are trying to chase them, but it is a matter of regret that a general

practitioner should send his patients into hospital simply because he himself is in such a state that he cannot carry on with more visits in the night after having had such a long day.
If we play fair with the doctors and get their salaries right—and we all want to do that and there seems to be no reason why it should not be done—and if we give them all the things which we want them to have and set them up in group practices or in health centres, these little difficulties—and I put them no higher than that—about giving an adequate service to the hospitals as well as the patients ought to be remedied.

6.12 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I am sure that the House has enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) with its forays into party polemics, and, in all seriousness, the constructive contributions which he has made from a position of authority.
I have not been in general practice for many years. As many hon. Members know, I transferred my studies to mental medicine and ended up here. I have been asking some of my friends and former colleagues in general practice about where the shoe pinches and I have been hearing something from them. Inevitably, what I have to retail to the House is secondhand, but it is clearly authentic, straight stuff.
I am glad to have the chance to support my former colleagues and to put some of the points which they make, which, I am bound to say, have been very pertinently found out this afternoon by hon. Members who seem to have got down to the nub of the subject in all sorts of directions. There is a great consensus of opinion throughout the House about what is wrong and what needs doing and almost about how it should be done. All the points which have been made on the subject of how to improve the lot of the general practitioner and his patients require action. They must be met, and met as a matter of urgency.
The first clear comment on the situation is the fact that young doctors are not coming into the service. Recruits are not coming into the profession. There is one universal comment behind all this


which does not apply only to doctors by a long chalk. It is that the work requires 24 hours' service, and in these days, when people can earn good money without having to do night emergency work, getting people to volunteer for the arduous professions like medicine, or police work, or other service work of any sort, becomes increasingly difficult. The people who are actually in medicine soon discover that they would much prefer to work in the hospital service, or even overseas and that the lot of the general practitioner in this country is very harsh.
As has frequently been said, there is no doubt about the reality of the annoyances and frustrations with which the general practitioner is faced at every turn. As a consequence of all this, there are too few doctors, especially in the younger-age groups, and there are nothing like enough to fill the vacancies which are now cropping up.
I think that I am right in saying that after the war an inquiry reported that there were too many doctors and that there should be a discouragement against entry into the profession. This was at the time when I was making my first attempt at resettlement after the war, and I was thunderstruck to hear it. Anybody in medicine knew perfectly well that it was complete balderdash. Now, a decade or two later, we are faced with the consequences of that great error of judgment and now we have to do something to increase recruiting into this arduous profession.
A medical friend of mine told me that 18 years ago there were 120 applicants for every job which became vacant, whereas now practices were going begging. He told me that, recently, not in one of the under-doctored areas of which we know so well, but in darkest Chelsea, there was a complete practice which needed someone to run it. Three applicants put in their names and in turn each found that he could not run it. In the end, the practice had to be carved up and redistributed among adjacent practices. That is the situation which we have reached right on our own doorstep, here in the middle of London.
One of my informants has told me about this terrible business about money. I do not mean salary. The case for that is obvious enough and I did not discuss it with my general practitioner colleagues.

I am concerned with the money invested in practices. There is an injustice in this connection which has been mentioned but which has not been squarely put and which my right hon. Friend should examine. Interest-free loans are available for the improvement of practices only where there are three or more partners. The wretched single-handed man and the practice with two partners are not entitled to expect finance of this sort. This is most unfair because, as we all know, it is the single-handed man who is up against it in the worst sense.
It seems a little odd that Government funds can be used for improving hospitals and not be available for improving practices while practitioners are by law prevented from owning their practices. A curious issue was raised by an hon. Friend of mine who pointed out that there was an amount which had to be paid by a doctor going into practice because of the money which the existing partners had raised for paying off loans, and so on. We are thus getting into the situation where part of a practice has to be paid for with his own money by someone who wishes to become a partner. This is quite anachronistic, and there is something grossly illogical about the expectation that private money should be spent on what are public practices.
Another handicap for all those in practice, as was recognised this afternoon, is the cost of premises. The price of premises for a practice in London is now prohibitive. When tens or scores of thousands of pounds represent the value of one perfectly ordinary house, it is impossible for any practitioner, or pair or trio of practitioners, to be able to raise the money to house a surgery.
Nor is there any London weighting for practice expenses. One informant told me that he thought that it was a bit hard that he and his colleagues in London should be appraised for expenses of their practice on precisely the same financial basis as a doctor practising in Merthyr Tydvil, or somewhere else where the cost of a practice would be approximately one-tenth as much. We come back to the doctor who is trying to run a single-handed practice. He finds that locum tenens are practically unobtainable, and practically prohibitive if they are obtainable,


so that the single hander cannot go on holiday and is breaking the law if he goes sick. This seems to me to be a foolishness which we ought not to continue to counterance.
Another difficulty is that experienced in London and in many big cities. Doctors on their rounds, as they used to be called, cannot park their cars outside the house at which they want to call, and have to drive past and find somewhere else to park. This is absurd. I realise that any concession to doctors might open the door to all sorts of abuses; that people might put medical stickers on their cars and get away with it; but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport might well pay attention to this, because he allows people who are invalids to park their vehicles in defiance of the regulations. It might be possible for those who are on their rounds to make use of unloading bays. Unless this is done, the medical practice will suffer and none of us wants that to happen.
The biggest trouble, I think we all agree, of this difficulty about medical practice is that of patients requiring chronic supportive treatment. It is all very well to say that people should be discouraged from going to doctor's surgery, or that it is grossly unfair that they should be discouraged from going there, but one doctor tells me that he can tell the day of the week merely by looking at the faces in his surgery.
These people are undergoing supportive treatment which is not physical. It is psychotherapy. It is often said that 30 per cent. of the patients seen by a general practitioner are in some measure nervous cases, to describe them in the jargon. Here is the difficulty, and I think that we all understand what has happened. There has been a game of pat ball. When the National Health Service started, the old relationship by which the private practitioner was paid 2s. 6d. a time to go on seeing people who needed his spport although there was no real medical content in it ascertainable by laboratory means, broke down. When the Health Service was introduced and these doctors were given their lists and had great demands put on them, there was no place in the scheme of things for

the chronic patient needing supportive treatment.
The result was that they were sent to the hospitals because these had the psychiatric services, and many of us know that the psychiatric outpatient clinics regarded these patients as not being within their province so they were sent back. As I say, it was a game of pat ball. This is no good. We all recognise this as a fact, and we must do something about it because these are the people who are breaking the back of the general practitioner.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the only way out of this impasse is to provide some sort of therapist. I do not mean the psycho-analytical expert who talks in high-flown jargon. I mean some work-a-day trained male nurse, or dual trained nurse, who might be called a medical auxiliary, to look after the chronic patients who need this supportive treatment. This would provide a substantial easement of the burden on the general practitioner.
I appreciate that the problems are very heavy both for the general practitioner and for my right hon. Friend. There are more people in this country now. There are more harassing things today. There is more paper work. One good idea for cutting it down was brought out by the hon. Member for Small Heath. There are more chronic patients. All this work has to be undertaken for a less satisfying life. I believe that one of the things which, quite properly, is upsetting the general practitioner is that while everybody else's leisure is increasing his is diminishing to vanishing point. He is entitled to less scurvy treatment, and we have a duty to improve his position.
The problems are the number in the profession, money and its distribution, and the provision of supportive services, and I am glad that one other hon. Member has paid tribute to the general practitioner's wife who, as everyone knows, is the only unpaid medical auxiliary both for clerical and for therapeutic work available to a general practitioner.
I urge my right hon. Friend to try to become the general practitioners' champion, and to get down to a solution of these problems.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). His speech was full of knowledge on the subject, and I found very little with which to differ in his analysis of the situation.
I propose to comment on one or two of the matters with which he dealt, and which, I think, need underlining. The cost of premises in London is becoming acute. It is almost impossible for a general practitioner to move, or to extend his premises. The Minister said in answer to a Question that I asked that the executive council is enabled to give some support and aid where there is difficulty, but I shall be grateful if, when the Minister replies, he will tell me what kind of support and financial aid it is empowered to give in London where general practitioners find it almost impossible to obtain premises at less than an impossible rental or purchase price.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the lack of London weighting, and I suggest that the Minister ought to consider this with regard to the problem of giving justice to doctors working in the Metropolis on the subject of locumtenentes, it is interesting to note, on the question of providing services for night calls and. for week-ends, that out of 2,237 general practitioners under the London Executive Council, 1,305 have sought and been granted deputising arrangements. When we talk about doctors doing full-time work, at least in London more than 50 per cent. of them have deputising arrangements on various schemes. Although I should like to discuss the Emergency Night Call Service and its implications for doctors' pay, time does not permit it.
The only other point on which I wish to follow the hon. Gentleman is the question of the chronics who turn up on Monday mornings, and what one should do about them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for a therapist who is able to take some of the load off the general practitioner's shoulders, but surely it must be accepted as part of a G.P.'s job. He is the family doctor. He recognises those who need support, and he can do more to help than can be done by a straightforward application of clinical medicine It is our task to see whether,

instead of a few lectures in psychiatry and an examination of the exotics of the Tavistock Clinic, we can provide the training which will enable him to deal with the ordinary middle-aged person who is under stress and strain.
Prescription charges led to a good deal of discussion in this debate. May I remind the House that we voted against this when the then Minister of Health—at that time it was the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)—introduced it in 1952. We had a Division on the Regulations, and this party voted against it. In addition to the comments which have been made by my hon. Friends, it should be noted that this is not only a tax on the sick, but that it means that the more sick one is the more one pays.
A general practitioner see those over 65 10 times a year. Those under 5 also visit him 10 times a year, but those in the middle age group visit him five times a year. This is therefore not only a tax on the sick, but also a tax on the old and on the young, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for making it clear that a Labour Government will get rid of the prescription charges.

Mr. Barber: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, which Government took power to impose prescription charges, and, secondly, which Government introduced charges for spectacles?

Mr. Pavitt: That point has already been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). I do not want to go over the old ground again, because I am anxious to get to the new ground. It is true that the legislation was introduced by a Labour Government, but it is equally true that it was firmly stated that this was of a temporary nature in time of emergency, and was for only three years. That period has long since passed.
I should like to have followed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt), because I enjoyed the period when she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I pick up one point she made of dissatisfaction among the older general practitioners on the question of the way in which the amount allocated to them in respect of practice goodwill has declined


in the period since it was first allocated. It so happens that I have the figures which the Minister gave me recently. The total amount remaining to be disbursed to general practitioners is £27,316,000. If that were brought up to modern prices the Minister estimates that the figure would be £50 million. There is, therefore, a clear discrepancy between the amount that general practitioners were given and the amount that they would get—and to the older practitioners this must rankle not a little. They feel that they are being rather unjustly treated.
I am pleased to be able to have caught the eye of the Chair, on this my last week in my five-year stretch. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham talked about mental health, and put forward some analogies in this respect to the kind of life we lead here. My feeling is that I am at the end of my first five-year sentence here. At the beginning of it I had the honour to be the first Member on this side to make a maiden speech, and in that speech I dealt with the question of general practice. I am, therefore, pleased that I am able to speak today, and to wind up what has often seemed to me a five-year duologue between myself and three successive Ministers of Health on the question of general practice.
One of the important things that has happened now—three Ministers and several reshuffles later—is that at long last the Government are coming round to thinking of doing something about general practice. Today, we have had tribute after tribute from hon. Members on both sides for the general practitioner. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fare-ham is right. There is plenty of talk and plenty of tribute, but very little action. In the near future I hope that we shall be able to follow up some of the ideas that have been floating around for some time. We have had the Porritt Report, the reports of dozens of working parties, and the Fraser Committee is now sitting, but at the end there is still need for action to be taken. That action will be political, and I am sure that a Labour Government will be in a position to take it.
For the last 13 years the family doctor has been at the bottom of the queue. The hon. Member for Edgbaston talks about the Gillie Report. I agree with her

that it is a first-class job of work. But this is the first opportunity that we have had in this House to discuss it. We have had the 10-year plan for hospitals; we have had the 10-year plan for local health authorities, but general practitioners are not even considered. They are at the bottom of the scale, last in line. The Government have not even found the time to discuss the Gillie Report or to put forward a Government statement for discussion arising from it.
As for pay, we should get it clearly on the record that the average pay of a general practitioner today is £2,765, or £4,200 gross. He gets only 17s. per patient, and 9s. for each in addition as his part of the expense factor. The House assessed the mood of the general practitioner correctly today when it pointed out that it is not just a question of pay or of expenses, but a question of our having to reassess the whole pattern of things and to see how the general practitioner can best fit into the National Health Service.
Dr. Murray, of the T.U.C., recently likened our National Health Service not to the usual form of economic cake which is cut up into individual sectors, but to a layer cake, with four layers. The top layer consists of a large sector of the population which is quite healthy and has no symptoms. The people in this sector do not worry anybody about anything. It is quite a large sector. Then there is another layer, consisting of people who do have symptoms but who either take care of them themselves or go to chemists and say nothing about it. They do not consult anybody. Those top two layers represent about 50 per cent. of the population.
The third layer consists of people who have symptoms and go to see their general practitioners, who give them prescriptions and then see them again in a few weeks' time if they are not better. The bottom layer is the hospital service, which caters in an institutional way. But the whole of our medical practice is based on only part of this lower tier—a very small sector consisting of the teaching hospitals. The whole of our Health Service practice stems from this little sector of teaching hospitals. Therefore, it is not to be wondered that we have an illness service and not a health service. This is where our preoccupation lies.
We must entirely change this situation. In the past, the doctors themselves decided on their method of remuneration and for a long time the Spens Report was like the law of the Medes and Persians, which could not be altered. At the moment, however, opinion in the medical service is fluid, and it is up to politicians to take advantage of that situation so as to make sure that when we make changes those changes are made in the right direction.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North not only in his diagnosis, but on the number of points of treatment that he put forward. I would like to add one. I contend that in general practice today there is a certain amount of schizophrenia. The general practitioner is more or less divided. One part of him wants to be above society—the witch doctor type of person—as was the case in the old days, before the National Health Service, especially at the end of the last century, when the squire, the doctor and the parson were above the ordinary run-of-the mill person and were looked up to not as humans, but as being a little godlike.
General practitioners are human enough to want to be a little god-like, or exceptional, or out of the ordinary. But on the other side, in 1964 they realise the need for them to be part of professional society—to be professionally trained and competent members of the community, who, like barristers or architects, live normal married lives in normal homes, with six weeks' holiday with pay and with a normal expectation of being able to fit into the life of the community. It is because, as a profession, they cannot make up their minds where they want to be, that we get the kind of resolution that was passed last week in Manchester.
I suggest that the Minister can help them in this matter if he gives them the opportunity of deciding which type of doctor they want to be—either a member of the present system, under which they have to find everything themselves, including locums and premises, and where they are entrepreneurs on contract to the Ministry, in which case they may retain a little of their god-like father figure relationship with the community 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, or alternatively, accept the fact that, like judges and

hospital consultants, there is no reason why they should not be part of a salaried service.
This will not be easy, but is it not possible for the Minister to give an option so that when a doctor starts in general practice he is offered an alternative. He can decide either to be under the capitation pool system, with all that it involves, or to accept a salary together with conditions of service, in which case arrangements will be made for locums, holidays and coverage for his premises—and certainly complete coverage in respect of the kind of ancillary and auxiliary services that he requires. Possibly a solution of this kind would succeed in bringing about a fresh approach on the part of new doctors.
If we are to be successful in this we must have a complete reorganisation of our approach to general practice, and to our idea of where it should fit into the Health Service. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham hit the nail on the head when he said that a doctor cannot do everything for his patients. In this respect, we want not merely more doctors and not merely more time. We must begin to study the question as a group job. I do not mean merely three or four doctors operating together. We must consider the matter from the point of view of the kind of people as a team we can put round the doctor—the possibility of providing for him a receptionist, besides health visitors and nurses.
Beyond that, the doctor needs to know the whole range of social services that exists. He needs to know what family service units are doing and what the Council of Social Services is doing. He must know what help he can get from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Many agents, both voluntary and statutory, are there to help him in his work.
Too much clap trap has been talked about the doctor being the leader of the Health Service team. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to him in those terms. Over the whole of my five-year sentence in this House we have paid lip service to this idea, but what has any Minister done about it? Nothing at all. There has been no discussion of the way in which the general practitioner ties in with the local health authority. There is a complete division between the local


health authority service and the general practitioner. The general practitioner who practises obstetrics often finds difficulty in being able to obtain the services of the same midwife time and time again, so that he can have the right kind of teamwork relationship with her.
Let us stop talking in glib phrases about the general practitioner being the leader of the Health Service team. If we mean that, we have to take the necessary action nationally, regionally, and locally, in order to give effect to the concept so that the doctor may be surrounded by the kind of people giving service whom he needs to help him and to give him the necessary status. If we are examining the way in which general practice over the next 10 or 20 years will work out we owe a debt to Dr. Abraham Marcus for his clear article in yesterday's Observer. If we are going into preventive medicine, the general practitioner will see more and more people. There will be an increasing need for screening before the disease occurs, and the obvious person to do that is the family doctor who is close to his patients.
We have the appalling situation that during the year before last it was reported by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health that 2,599 women died from cancer of the cervix and this could have been prevented. There are many things which cannot be prevented, but when 3,000 women die, and their deaths could have been prevented it is an appalling situation. We could not provide the 400 cytologists to give the necessary pathological tests to arrest the disease in the early stages.
Obviously, the general practitioner is the person on whom the extra burden will fall. In various other spheres the general practitioner will have to stand in the front line. This is the aspect which we must consider rather than the old "horse and buggy" picture where the general practitioner sits by the patient's bedside all night, and at the dawn a grateful mother says, "Thank you, doctor. You have saved the life of my child". We must realise that we are living in a scientific age in which we have modern scientific and technological aids to put in the hands of the general practitioner. He can use these

aids only if we give him the power to do so. For goodness' sake let us stop expecting to use a doctor, who has been trained for seven years, as a filing clerk, or a shorthand typist writing letters and doing social service work, for which he has no time or qualifications.
I suggest that the pattern of medicine, in future, makes nonsense of any idea of putting a financial barrier between the doctor and the patient. This point has been answered already, but I would say to those doctors who were foolish enough to pass that resolution at their Manchester conference that they should consult their colleagues in rural practices who still have to charge for dispensing. As professional people, they loathe the idea of giving advice to a patient and then saying, "That will be 2s., please." The patients feel they are paying the doctor at that rate for his services.
If the right pattern of medicine is to emerge it is not enough for us, as politicians, to ensure that there is the right framework of legislation available and sufficient power and finance behind it. The doctors must put their own house in order. Too few ordinary doctors engage in medico-politics. Those who do are usually those doctors who have large combined lists and three or four partners to assist them, so that they have time to attend meetings. They are not "with it" in relation to what is happening on the "ground floor", or aware of the problems of young doctors entering practice in a modern world.
Perhaps the Minister may help in this respect. It is time that the General Medical Services Committee, which represents the general practitioners under the National Health Service Act, was completely independent from the medico-political organisation. The framework is there. Local medical committees should be made to elect doctors in a democratic fashion. They should put their members on the General Medical Services Committee, for which there is provision in the Act. If this was completely independent from the British Medical Association nothing but good would result. The doctors would feel that instead of being in the hands of a small group of members of their profession—who had managed to get to the top and had time to indulge in


medico-politics as a spare-time hobby—there existed a democratic structure, from the local committee to the top organisation, negotiating on their behalf. Thus, the independence of the G.M.S.C. is vital, if doctors are to generate the kind of practice which we all want to see.
The annual conference could still decide policy. At the same time, the Minister should have his own lines of communication. It is an appalling situation that in negotiations, and when the Fraser Committee reports, when the hospital plan is put forward and there is discussion on it, the whole of the information which gets to the general practitioner should come through the British Medical Journal. The report could be biased against the Minister and opportunities for the right hon. Gentleman to put his case could be extremely limited. Therefore, the whole question of communications between the Minister and the G.P. is important, because he is unaware of the kind of decision being taken and the reasons behind it. All too often there is a wide gap between what the general practitioner wants and what the Minister thinks that he wants.
During the next five years we may have to start to choose our priorities in medicine. Priority has been towards the institution. Now we must be clear that in the coming years we must give priority to domiciliary medicine rather than to the institution. I have no hesitation in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends, if as is sometimes the case when there is a limited amount of finance available a choice has to be made between the institution and the domiciliary service, that priority should be given to the general practitioner and the domiciliary service.
We want an investment programme. We have been discussing the problems of ordinary income and expenditure. We must pay far more attention to capital investment. It is no good talking about £750 million invested in hospitals if, at the same time, we have Victorian, outdated and out-moded general practice surgeries where general practitioners have not the tools to do the job, and are unable to give the right kind of buttressing to the institutional services which we already possess.
I agree with hon. Members who have urged the Minister to consider the question of direct grants. I think that the whole question of interest-free loans should be extended—as was said by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham—to all forms of practice. This means the executive council must be the instrument for deciding not just the areas and fringes, but must also be able to take the initiative and decide and act on the quality of the service to be rendered. It should judge whether the practice premises conform to the kind of standards which are necessary in modern medicine.
This means that the present method of a group of general practitioners judging the premises of each other, and reporting whether they are good or bad, must be abandoned for something much more effective. The Ministry must seek power to aid good design, which means that the sort of work done by the Ministry's hospital building unit for hospitals must be available for general practice. We must have architects and experts on organisation and method, the kind of thing which the noble Lord, Lard Taylor, put forward some years ago in his book entitled, "Good General Practice". It could be done by the Ministry and advice given to doctors about how best to use their time, energy and service.
I contend that the present system is poised ready for the second stage. The basic necessity for general practice is still the integration of the three sections of the service. This is needed for the whole of the service, but particularly to secure the right kind of practice for the general practitioner. I suggest that the Minister must act boldly to achieve this. At the moment, we have three separate empires and no one is prepared to relinquish an empire without fighting. Therefore, a tough Minister will be needed to get the three sections, plus the occupational health service, integrated into a new administrative form. I believe that it is possible if only we can get the action—we have the knowledge to enable the general practitioner to reach the standard enjoyed by hospital specialists. They are specialists in their sphere. In this way, we should start to move from the present illness service and change the accent to a service for the prevention of illness.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Anthony Barber): If I have one regret about this debate, it is that, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said, it is all too short. I am sure that the whole House listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). In the short time that I have been Minister of Health, he has always shown, not only in this House but in correspondence and in other ways, both assiduity and knowledge in health and welfare matters, and I know that he always speaks with sincerity.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) opened the debate with a speech which I shall have to criticise in part, but which, in the main, was a very thoughtful one, dealing really with the philosophy of general practice. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said that the hon. Gentleman had a very nice bedside manner. I would not know about that, but, at any rate, we all listened with interest to what he had to say.
I suppose it is true to say that since I became Minister of Health I have given more thought to the family doctor service, than to any other branch of the National Health Service. In part, this is due to its importance, but it is also due to the fact that to find solutions to the problems which undoubtedly exist is no easy matter.
The first thing to realise is that many of the problems and causes of discontent stem from the fact that the general practitioner is not an employee of the Minister of Health, but an independent contractor. For example, to deal with one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), if we have a salaried service, then the Government would presumably provide and pay for both the doctor's practice premises and also for his ancillary staff. Again, the doctor's leave would be regulated, and there would be some control over how much work he could undertake for other employers. There would also be an establishment of doctors for different areas, which would enable them to be recruited where they were most needed. But, like the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, I have no intention of imposing a

salaried service against the wishes of the profession. It certainly has its attractions, but it also has its defects from the point of view of the doctor's independence of action, and we cannot have the one without the other.
There has been a great deal of talk in the course of this debate about the status of the family doctor. This is important because the status of the general practitioner is linked with the well-being of his patients. For the family doctor, status is a means to an end. What he wants can, I think, be put quite succinctly. He wants to practice good medicine, and he needs the pay, the conditions of service, and the status to enable him to do just that. One asks oneself where does the responsibility lie?
There are three parties who between them determine the doctor's status—the Government, the public, and the profession itself, and no one of these can do the whole job. Take the public first. I agree entirety with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that no one wants to prevent a person from seeing his doctor when he is ill. Indeed, early treatment is often of the utmost importance. But I make no apology for repeating what I said last week, and what I have said before, that I am frankly appalled at the intolerable attitude of a small minority of patients whose actions and lack of consideration can lead one to suppose only that they have. no conception that the family doctor is a highly-trained man—a man who, day in and day out, has to take decisions of the utmost gravity, and a man whose hours of work and devotion to duty should of themselves invoke particular consideration.
One of the problems that the National Health Service has thrown up, is, that over the years, doctors have been faced with a small minority of time-consuming patients whose lack of consideration places on the doctor a burden out of all proportion to their number. Listening to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North taking me to task for what I said last week on this topic, it occurred to me, with all due respect to him, that if he does not recognise this undoubted fact then, quite frankly, he would seem to be completely out of touch with reality, because it is something which is well-known to every general practitioner throughout the country.
I am not merely concerned with the hours of work of the general practitioner, or his welfare. I raise this because the result of lack of consideration by the minority that I am talking about is that, all too often, the doctor, when he has finished dealing with these people, has not the time left to deal as he would wish with those patients who really need his advice and the exercise of his professional skill. Much less has he the time and energy that he needs to keep up with the rapid progress of medical science.
I said that the general practitioner needs the pay and the conditions of service to enable him to practice good medicine.

Mr. Denis Howell: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. Barber: I want to talk about that.

Mr. K. Robinson: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk on the question of the time-consuming minority, I want to make clear that I do not deny the extent of the problem, although perhaps I do not regard it as so large a problem as he does. I was interested in how he was going to protect the general practitioner from this minority.

Mr. Barber: One way, I think, is by making speeches on occasions like this.

Mr. Robinson: That will not help.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that will help. There are other ways, television and others, which naturally I am considering, but whether I shall be successful in bringing this home to the minority of patients concerned, I do not know. I was saying that to pretend that this problem does not exist seems to me to be completely out of touch with reality.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred at some length to the question of remuneration. As the House will remember, both the Government and the profession accepted the increase of about 13 per cent. in the total net public pay of the general practitioner which was recommended by the Royal Commission in 1960. That was an increase which yas to last for a period of about three years, and it was fully implemented by the Government. The Government and the profession also

accepted the recommendation that there should be set up an independent review body to advise the Government on the pay of the profession. That was implemented also. I can think of no better way of dealing with the question of remuneration, and I take it, from what has been said today, that the Labour Party would not want to alter that arrangement. Last year, the independent Review Body advised a further increase of 14 per cent. in the total net pay of general practitioners from public sources.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said that the way in which this had worked out was "just about the last straw for the general practitioner", but of course this further increase, I am sure he would agree, is being implemented to the full by the Government in accordance with the recommendation of the independent Review Body.
A short time ago the profession submitted to me a new claim for increased remuneration. This new claim is for an increase of something over 30 per cent., or an average of about £900 a year for each general practitioner, to be back-dated to 1963 and paid in addition to the 14 per cent. recommended by the Review Body. That is how the claim worked out. In accordance with the undertakings given by my predecessor, I have passed the claim to the indepedent Review Body for its advice. While that Body is considering it, I am sure the House will agree it would not be right for me to make any public comment.
The hon. Member, in opening, said that the majority of doctors felt that they were being unfairly treated over pay. In order to avoid any misunderstanding in this pre-election period, I hope that if there is any disagreement at all with the way in which I have dealt with this matter of net remuneration, the hon. Member will say so now. If not, I assume that we can take it that there is no dispute between the Government and the Opposition about the method of dealing with the quantum of general practitioners' remuneration.
Of course, I agree with the hon. Member that the level of pay is not the only aspect of remuneration which is important. From the point of view of


providing an incentive to good doctoring the method of payment is almost equally important. I shall mention my proposals in a moment, but in passing I find it very difficult to know where the Labour Party stands on this. I have listened to what has been said in this House and I have also read what has been said by leading members of the Labour Party in another place.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about this question of the method of payment of general practitioners, even by the general practitioners themselves. They do not always realise that in addition to the net pay which is recommended by the independent Review Body, every penny of practice expenses as agreed with the Inland Revenue is reimbursed to the profession out of public funds. Together with the doctor's net remuneration which now averages £2,765 a year, the addition of the reimbursed practice expenses brings his average gross income from public funds to something over £4,200 a year.
The House will know that one feature of the present method of payment which struck me as wrong as soon as I became Minister of Health is that although the total of practice expenses is reimbursed in the profession as a whole, the system of distribution does not take proper account of the differences in expenditure between one practice and another. The result, as the hon. Member pointed out, is that some doctors get reimbursed more than others.
The hon. Member described this method of payment as "ludicrous". I am not sure whether he would have done anything about it against the wishes of the majority of the profession, but we have to keep in mind when criticism of the Government is made on this account that the present system is no accident. Until recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) said, this was the system which the profession itself favoured. The advantage of the present system, which I certainly want to change, is that it permits the payment of all expenses by the taxpayer without any interference at all with the doctor's discretion as an independent practitioner to arrange his practice as he wishes.
The system, therefore, safeguards the taxpayer because the expenditure of the individual doctor directly affects his own pocket. Nevertheless, I thought that we should try to get some change in the system so that, for instance, those who employ the staff they need are not at a disadvantage financially compared with those who do not. So it was that shortly after I was appointed we started these discussions with the profession. That these discussions have taken so long is not the fault of anyone, because we have been trying to evolve a system of direct reimbursement which is appropriate for an employee but we have been trying to do this without prejudicing the position of the general practitioner as an independent contractor.
As to ancillary help—nurses, receptionists, clerical help and so on—the House will be pleased to know that after very full discussions with the British Medical Association I have now put to the Association new proposals which Dr. Cameron, the Chairman of the General Medical Services Committee, has described as being:
an advance on anything we have had so far.
He added:
They give great grounds for optimism that a settlement may soon be reached.
I understand that these proposals will be considered by the General Medical Services Committee at a special meeting within the next couple of weeks or so, so the House will not expect me to say any more about them now. I add only that Dr. Cameron and his senior colleagues in the B.M.A. are tough negotiators but I am sure they recognise that my aim, like theirs, is to encourage doctors to employ the staff they need. What I have to do is to reconcile my responsibility to satisfy myself that the taxpayers' money is properly spent with my wish to allow doctors to run their practices as they choose even though the taxpayer foots the bill for the expenditure they incur.
I am also in the course of negotiation with a view to helping the doctor to raise the service the capital he needs. I recognise that setting up in practice in these days raises considerable problems for the young doctor. If the general practitioner were an employee like his colleague in the hospital, the Government would simply provide the premises,


but, because he wishes to remain as an independent contractor and it is natural for an independent professional man to want to take decisions about his own premises, we have to try to find some other way of helping him.

Dr. J. Dickson: May I ask a question about the magnitude of that reference? Group practice loans do not amount to very much money compared with other things. Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of a large scheme of £5 million or £10 million a year capital investment in general practice?

Mr. Barber: I should rather on this, as on any question about ancillary help, not say more because I am in negotiation with the B.M.A. The hon. Member will understand that the British Medical Association at its annual conference last week disclosed no details about this. I am in honour bound not to say more about it this evening. I should have been happy, had it been possible to reach agreement by now, to have made an announcement to the House.
I want to say something about the burden of work which falls on the general practitioner, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and a number of other hon. Members in this debate. There are a number of ways in which the family doctor can be helped. First, there is the point I made earlier. The public can help by treating the doctor with the consideration which is due to a highly-trained man who, day in and day out, is having to take decisions of the utmost gravity.
Secondly, if we are successful, as I believe we shall be, in agreeing on some satisfactory way of dealing with expenditure on ancillary help—nurses, receptionists, clerical help and the like—of course, the doctor will have a greater incentive to employ more help. That will cost the taxpayer more, but it will give the doctor more time to exercise those special skills which only he possesses.
I entirely agree with one hon. Member who spoke in the debate that it cannot be right that a highly-trained medical man should spend so much of his time looking after his records, writing letters, or making arrangements with hospitals and the ambulance service or the welfare

authorities. The third way in which I believe we can help—this is a point which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston—is to ease the burden on some doctors by encouraging more of them to go into what are known as under-doctored areas and fewer to go into the other areas. Already a great deal has been done. In 1951 the under-doctored areas contained one-half of the population. Such areas now contain only one-fifth of the population, although I agree that we must go further.
I am pleased to say that the Medical Practices Committee has recently stiffened its criteria for identifying the better-provided area, where entry of additional doctors is restricted, and has said that it intends to apply the new criteria more strictly. I appreciate that this is not the full answer and I understand that the Working Party will have something to say on this issue, too, but unless we take powers of direction— which, in my view, would not be desirable—what the Government can do will always be limited.
The fourth way to help to relieve the burden of work on doctors raises a matter which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham, and that is whether any amendment is needed in the doctors' terms of service. It is now more than 16 years since the inception of the National Health Service, and I am sure that the Working Party which I set up some months ago is the right way to tackle this aspect. This is, after all, a co-operative effort between the Health Departments and the medical profession. I am sure that it would have been wrong—and this will not be disputed in any quarter of the House—had I, without the sort of consultations now going on in the Working Party, decided in what respects I thought their terms of service should be amended or modified. Although I will not quote the actual terms of reference of the Working Party, I would remind the House that they are extremely wide and cover all the causes of discontent.
The Working Party has been meeting frequently and at the end of this week it will be publishing its first group of papers on matters of concern to the profession—not on fundamental questions which must obviously have longer study


but on topics of current interest where something can be done quickly, without prejudice to the wider issues. These papers will be distributed to general practitioners throughout the country and I will make them available in the Library of the House.

Mr. K. Robinson: Has an estimate been made of the probable length of time the Fraser Working Party will take to reach its conclusions?

Mr. Barber: No estimate has been made, first, because this is a co-operative effort and, secondly, because the Working Party is not steering its way towards one solution but is dealing with a whole mass of problems. The Working Party decided that because there were so many problems—some minor and some major—it would be best for it not to wait until the end of the day, when it was able to produce one mammoth report, but to feed out, as it were, commentaries on the points that had been considered and on which it felt able to issue documents.
The fifth way in which the lot of the general practitioner can be eased is by working in partnership. There has been considerable progress here. In 1952, 43 per cent. of general practitioners were working single-handed, with all the obvious difficulties involved. By last year only 27 per cent. of them were single-handed. One particularly valuable form of co-operation is group practice, which was referred to at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North.
The Cohen Committee recommended that this development should be encouraged by the provision of interest-free loans to group practices for the building or purchase and conversion of practice premises. I am always willing to look at any suggestions to see whether we can improve this in any way, but I do not think that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North was fair when he said that we were moving extremely slowly in this direction. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that about 600 such loans have already been approved. What is particularly important, the rate of approval has recently been increasing fast. Applications in 1962 numbered 93. By 1963 they had jumped to 145. They were up by 56 per cent. and approvals were up by 60 per cent. This is bound

to happen because there is a time-lag between application and approval.
The sixth way of helping the family doctor is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport said, by providing direct help by the attachment to individual G.P.s of local health authority staffs such as health visitors, midwives and district nurses. We are making considerable progress in this direction. In an otherwise fair speech, the hon. Member for Willesden, West said that there was complete division between general practitioners and local health authorities. This is not so and is not borne out by the facts because, as I say, we are making considerable progress. One of my hon. Friends referred to the position in Oxford. In one county which I know, Hampshire, for instance, 160 family doctors have such workers attached to them and I am told that the results are excellent. I am sure that we must do all we can to encourage this trend.

Mr. Pavitt: I hope that the Minister is aware that this is not a question merely of attaching social workers to general practitioners. This is not the concept of one social worker. This is the concept of team work between the local health authority and the local executive council.

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will study the figures he will see that we have gone a long way towards achieving that. This is, in essence, a question of co-operation between local practitioners and local health authorities.
I have mentioned six ways of easing the burden on general practitioners. The seventh, of course, is to increase their numbers. Listening to the Opposition it is apparent that they simply have no idea of what has already been achieved. Let me give some figures. In 1960–61 the intake of British—and I stress that I am ignoring overseas students—medical students was 1,788. The next year 1961–62, it was 1,896. The following year it had risen to 2,047 and last year, the autumn intake had risen to 2,153. That represents an increase of 365, or 20 per cent. in three years. So much for the jibe of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North about our squeezing a few more students into existing schools. An increase of 20 per cent. in three years is not bad.


However, I will come back to that. I recognise that this is not enough, and that is why we are taking steps to increase the number of medical students still further.
While it is clear that there must be a further increase, the actual number will depend on many factors, some of them very difficult to assess for the future. One obvious factor is the number of doctors originating in this country who are leaving permanently—I stress "permanently"—to practise overseas. What we need to know is the net rate of emigration; not simply the number of doctors who are emigrating but more about those who are coming back to this country. It is the net rate of emigration which counts. With the agreement of the B.M.A., I am about to send out a special questionnaire to a sample number of doctors to help us to obtain a realistic estimate. At the same time, we are considering the rate of immigration of doctors from overseas. In a recent article, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North wrote that the Abel-Smith Report
… shows that about a quarter of our newly-qualified doctors emigrate each year.
Of course, the Abel-Smith Report shows no such thing. The fact is that very few indeed of our newly-qualified doctors emigrate.
What that Report does show is that between 350 and 400 British-born doctors emigrate each year. But it also shows—which, I think, is very significant in the context of this debate—that the majority of doctors who choose to leave Great Britain are not general practioners; they are doctors who were last employed in hospital work, and many of them apparently felt that they were unable to obtain here a post of sufficient seniority.
Of course, we do not want excessive emigration, but criticism on that score should, as I think the whole House will agree, be in guarded language. After all, this country has always made a contribution to the health of other parts of the world, and when one sees the distressing conditions in some countries where one solitary doctor can effect an improvement seemingly out of all proportion to the efforts of one man, then I, for my part, despite my responsibility to the people of this country, cannot

begrudge some contribution to those overseas.
The House will remember that it was announced some time ago that there was to be at least one new medical school, and it will be pleased to know that it has been decided to provide this at the University of Nottingham. It will involve the building of a new teaching hospital with about 1,200 beds, and the medical school will be planned for an annual entry of 100 students. The City Council has generously offered a contribution of £100,000 towards the establishment of the Medical Faculty.
The Labour Party talks glibly about building four new medical schools, but all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that such a policy cannot possibly relieve the pressure on general practitioners or other doctors for at least 10 years, and very likely longer. The immediate task must surely be to increase still further the intake of medical students in the immediate future, and this we will do.
I have already mentioned that the intake of students normally resident in Great Britain has increased by 20 per cent. during the last three years. The House will be pleased to know—as, I am sure, will the medical profession—that after taking the advice of the University Grants Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has agreed that the existing medical schools should be expanded to increase the annual intake of British-based students by about 150 by October, 1966. Some of these additional places will be available this October.
The House will appreciate the significance of the fact that the figure of 150 is the figure of annual intake. Because any increase in the annual intake results in a progressively greater increase in the actual number of students as the years go by, the result of this decision will be that by October, 1966, there should be some 400 extra British-based medical students in our schools. The necessary additional funds for this expansion will be made available.
This is really a considerable increase but, even so, we are now considering the possibility of further increases in the longer term. These developments will be


welcomed, I know, by the medical profession, because they will relieve the burden far more quickly than the construction of new medical schools which, as far as I can see, seems to be the only pancea proposed by the Labour Party for increasing the supply of doctors—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is not the Minister aware that it is also the policy of the British Medical Association that there should be four medical schools; and that they should be in the North? And, while most would welcome the statement about existing universities, is it not true that there is a limit to the capacity of existing medical schools, many of which are already overcrowded?

Mr. Barber: All I say is that the only policy put forward by the Labour Party is four new medical schools, which everyone knows perfectly well—the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North admitted it a moment ago—cannot possibly help for at least 10 years. What I propose now, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is arranging, is something that will help well before the 10 years are up, and it seems that this is the only sensible policy that should be pursued.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said that this debate is a timely one. I hope that I shall not be thought to be ungenerous when I say that, having heard that the Opposition had decided to have this debate within the last fortnight of the Session, it occurred to me that they might conceivably have had in mind some electoral advantage. [Interruption.] What is the position?

First, the Labour Party has suggested no way of improving on the Government's handling of the question of the family doctor's pay. Secondly, the Labour Party have suggested no way of improving on the Government's handling of the question of the family doctor's practice expenses.

Thirdly, as I have just said, the Labour Party has suggested no way of improving for at least 10 years on the Government's handling of the manpower question. Hon. Members opposite have talked, as I said said, about four new medical schools, but they know that this will not help.

Fourthly, while the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, wants a salaried service, Lord Taylor, who leads for the Labour Party on health matters in another place, does not want a salaried service. I did not even hear from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North whether he was in favour of a salaried service or not. What he said was that if he had responsibility, he would certainly not introduce one unless it had the backing of the profession.

Lastly, the one positive—[Interruption.]—and immediate proposal of the Labour Party is to abolish prescription charges, which the B.M.A. decided only last week would be against the interests of the overworked family doctor. The subject of this debate was chosen by hon. Members opposite for party political advantage—[Interruption.] As things have turned out, I can only express to the Opposition my profound gratitude.

Question put, That "£219,615,000" stand part of the Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 199.

Division No. 142.]
AYES
[7.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Anderson, D. C.
Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Cleaver, Leonard


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Box, Donald
Cole, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cooke, Robert


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Braine, Bernard
Cooper, A. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barter, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cordle, John


Batsford, Brian
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Corfield, F. V.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bullard, Denys
Coulson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Berkeley, Humphry
Campbell, Gordon
Critchley, Julian


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Curran, Charles


Biffen, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Currie, G. B. H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Chataway, Christopher
Dalkeith, Earl of




Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharples, Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'd field)
Shaw, M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Foster, Sir John
Longbottom, Charles
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stainton, Keith


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Talbot, John E.


Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gough, Frederick
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Teeling, Sir William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Temple, John M.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grosvenor, Lard Robert
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turner, Colin


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walder, David


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walker, Peter


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hocking, Philip N.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wall, Patrick


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Holland, Philip
Page John (Harrow, West)
Webster, David


Hopkins, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wise, A. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Jackson, John
Pitt, Dame Edith
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Jennings, J. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woollam, John


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Crosland, Anthony


Alldritt, W. H.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowles, Frank
Darling, George


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barnett, Guy
Bradley, Tom
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Deer, George


Beaney, Alan
Brockway, A. Fenner
Delargy, Hugh


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dempsey, James


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Diamond, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dodds, Norman


Benson, Sir George
Callaghan, James
Doig, Peter


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil
Donnelly, Desmond


Blyton, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)


Boston, T. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.







Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Redhead, E, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, G. W.


Evans, Albert
Lubbock, Eric
Rhodes, H.


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Finch, Harold
McBride, N.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fletcher, Eric
McCann, J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mclnnes, James
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavey, Frank
Short, Edward


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolmn
Silkin, John


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mapp, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marsh, Richard
Small, William


Hannan, William
Mason, Roy
Snow, Julian


Harper, Joseph
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Milne, Edward
Steele, Thomas


Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter
Stonehouse, John


Houghton, Douglas
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Stones, William


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Frederick
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taverne, D.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, B. K.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, Thomas
Thompson Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Owen, Will
Tomney, Frank


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paget, R. T.
Warbey, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Watkins, Tudor


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, David


Jeger, George
Parker, John
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willey, Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


King, Dr. Horace
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Woof, Robert


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Randall, Harry



Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Grey and Mr. Ifor Davies.

It being after half-past Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to XI of the Civil Estimates, the Defence (Central) Estimate, the Defence (Navy) Estimates, the Defence (Army) Estimates, the Defence (Air) Estimates, and of Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure].

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

CLASS I

GOVERNMENT AND EXCHEQUER

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS

III HOME AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TRANSPORT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V

AGRICULTURE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VII

UNIVERSITIES AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VIII

MUSEUMS, GALLERIES AND THE ARTS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND COMMON GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS X

SMALLER PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS XI

MISCELLANEOUS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class XI of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Defence (Central) Estimates,

put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Defence (Navy) Estimates,

put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1964–65

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Defence (Army) Estimates,

put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Defence (Air) Estimates,

put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Navy Expenditure, 1962–63,

put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Army Expenditure, 1962–63,

put and agreed to.

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Air Services Expenditure, 1962–63,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [21st July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, the sum of £4,052,822,950 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Green.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1965, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Orders of the Day — CONCESSIONARY FARES

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 in order to restore to local authorities the freedom to initiate schemes of concessionary fares to pensioners, the blind and the disabled which they enjoyed until November 1954, and to deal with the anomalies which arose therefrom.
The crazy story, the almost incomprehensible story, of the Government's handling of the problem of concessionary fares goes back 10 years. Towards the end of 1954, a Mr. Prescott, a Birmingham ratepayer, who, I understand, was a member of the Conservative Party, but who has, to use one of its inelegant phrases, been "chucked" out since, went to the High Court to secure a declaration that the Birmingham scheme for concessionary fares to old people was ultra vires the corporation. The Court of Chancery decided that the corporation had neither the power to grant such concessionary fares nor the power to prohibit them and, therefore, the question as to whether or not these fares were legal or illegal had to be decided on general principles.
The court took the view that the corporation had the duty to hold a fair balance between all sections of its citizens and that, as this scheme meant, in effect, a gift to one section of its citizens, it was ultra vires the corporation. Birmingham Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal and, on 30th November, 1954, the appeal was dismissed.
Birmingham did not go to the House of Lords, but, instead, it decided to promote a Private Bill to give the corporation power to carry on with its scheme. It is interesting to note that, in spite of an intensive campaign by the National Association of Ratepayers' Associations, there was at the town's meeting in connection with this Private Bill a majority of 10 to one in favour of the concessionary fares Clause.
Throughout the country, 96 local authorities were affected, and all these local authorities were faced with the prospect of having to promote a Private Bill in this House in order to continue


their concessions. All of them gave concessions to children, 91 gave concessions to blind people, 67 gave concessions to disabled people and almost 30 gave concessions to retired people. The average cost at that time, as worked out by the late hon. Member for The Hartlepools, Mr. David Jones, was £6,000. A small town like Pontypridd, where the product of a 1d. rate was £600, would have had to pay the product of a 10d. rate in order to promote a Bill in the House.
I therefore introduced a Private Member's Bill to save all this tremendous expense throughout the country—96 times £6,000—and to save the enormous amount of work which would have been imposed on hon. Members. My Bill, which I brought in at the end of 1954, would not have introduced concessions, but it would have been a general enabling Measure. It would have reversed, in effect, the Prescott decision and would have given to local authorities the power which they, the Government and everyone else, always assumed they had until the Prescott decision. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport at the time, Mr. Hugh Molson, as he then was, said of this decision that
it was entirely unexpected that a decision of the courts would deprive them of the benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 790.]
The Government did not expect the decision; they and everyone else assumed that the local authorities were acting quite legally in granting these concessions.
Under the pressure of the imminent General Election, because there had been a change of Prime Ministers, Sir Anthony Eden, as he then was, decided to allow this Bill and, I think, one other Bill, dealing with libraries in Scotland, to go through before the election, but, in the Standing Committee, the Government amended the Bill, using their majority, against the wishes of my hon. Friends and myself, so that, instead of being a general enabling Measure, all it did was to legalise concessions which existed at any time in 1954 up to the date of the Court of Appeal's decision on 30th November.

Sir Leslie Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government illegitimately used their majority at that time? Surely, that is the object of a majority.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friends and I warned the Government during the Committee stage and on Third Reading—I have taken the trouble to read the debates before this evening—that anomalies would appear immediately, from the word "go", and that what they were doing would, in effect, be no solution to the problem. But they were quite adamant about it, and they have remained so ever since.
Government supporters have made three points to justify their rigid attitude on this question. They are still making two of them, but they are keeping very quiet about the third. I will tell the House what the three points are. The first is perhaps best summed up in some words used by Mr. Hugh Molson at the time the Bill was going through the House. He said that the Bill was obviously
a departure from the general and rational principle … that local authorities should at their discretion be free to provide, at the expense of the ratepayers, concessions for retirement pensioners living in their own part of the country which do not apply in other parts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February. 1955; Vol. 537, c. 790.]
As recently as 4th June this year the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) said pretty much the same thing in a supplementary question. He said:
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the granting of concessionary fares would create a great many more anomalies, for the simple reason that a large number of pensioners would not be able to derive benefit from them?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 1249.]
In other words, the local authorities should not be allowed to do anything unless everybody else can do it. This comes from a party which talks a great deal about freedom for local authorities. When the Bill introducing the general grant was being discussed, speech after speech was made on the theme of freedom for local authorities to decide what they did in their own backyard. Surely if the ratepayers in an area wish to do something for certain deserving categories of their citizens, they ought to be allowed to do it. After all, the councils are subject to close scrutiny and approval by the ratepayers every three years.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What would be the position in a place where


there are concessionary fares and there are also bus services which are not municipal services running into the same town? It would not be possible for the non-municipal services to give concessions unless the traffic commissioners permitted it.

Mr. Short: This is the same argument: if everybody cannot do it, do not let anybody do it. I believe that local authorities should be free to do this if they wish.
The second thing which the Government have said and are still saying to justify their attitude—we heard a great deal about this even up to a few days ago—is that it is much better to give these categories of recipients an adequate income. As late as 1st July, in what I think he will agree, on reading it, was a rather arrogant reply to me, the Parliamentary Secretary used these words:
As has been explained on many occasions, we believe in paying people in cash and not in kind so that old-age pensioners have freedom to use the money in their own way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1335.]
I have read part of the answer, but not the arrogant part.
We all agree with that statement; we agree 100 per cent. But is the working community of this country prepared at the moment to ensure that when people retire they do not suffer a big drop in their standard of living? The goal to which my right hon. Friends and I wish to work is to ensure that when a person retires he suffers no drop in his standard of living at all. This is a matter of the relationship of the individual to the community. We believe that there ought to be a sort of social contract between the individual and the community; the individual gives his services to the community for 40 years or so, and when he retires he has the right to expect that the community will maintain his standard of living.
That is certainly what we are working towards, but we have no illusions about it. We believe that the time has not yet arrived when the working community is prepared to face up to that entirely. We think that members of the community are prepared now to take a big step forward, but we do not think that they are yet prepared to create a state

of affairs in which a person retires and suffers no drop at all in his standard of living. Until that happens it is surely a decent, humane and sensible thing to grant this sort of concession.
I will tell the House the third thing which the Government said in 1955. The present Parliamentary Secretary took a great part in this, and he said it himself; I have read his speech tonight. I have already referred to the words of the then Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Hugh Molson. I gave him notice in another place that I should refer to him. He then said:
If other local authorities desire to have the same powers, we think that it would be appropriate for them to promote a Private Bill in each case …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 792.]
About 30 local authorities throughout the country took the Government at their word and promoted Private Bills, at great expense, to do this. Every single one of them had this Clause rejected at the request of the Ministry of Transport. The Newcastle Bill actually got through Committee in this House, but when it reached the other place there was a request from the Ministry of Transport that the Clause dealing with concessionary fares should be deleted, and the other place deleted it. That is the nearest that anybody has got.
The statement I have quoted was made by a great many Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), who talked a great deal about this matter. But it was sheer hypocrisy, because the Government had no intention of allowing any Private Bill to go through in this respect. It is shocking that the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport read out his brief and said this—and in every case the Ministry of Transport had the Clause deleted. Of course, it made the Government's case on the eve of the 1955 election sound reasonable. They said, "We will legalise the concessions which already exist and we say to other local authorities that if they want to introduce these concessions they must bring in a Private Bill." But when they brought in a Private Bill, the Government requested the Committee, as Government Departments do, to delete this Clause. If that is not sharp practice, I do not know what is.
Since then, as we predicted in Committee and on Third Reading of the


1954 Bill, the position has become chaotic. Glaring anomalies appeared from the beginning of 1955. I will not describe the anomalies, because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will describe the anomalies in Liverpool, and they are pretty much the same in every other area throughout the country.
For 10 years, in spite of Parliamentary Questions, in spite of Private Members' Bills—I do not know how many I have introduced—in spite of letters to local authorities, in spite of letters from organisations such as The Townswomen's Guild, the Scottish T.U.C., the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Association, the National League for the Blind, Edinburgh Town Council and many other local authorities—in spite of all this, the Government have refused up to 1st July to budge one inch. As recently as 4th June, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), the Prime Minister again rejected the proposal. He said:
This raises the whole problem of whether benefits for old-age pensioners should be in cash or in kind. I said quite clearly then"—
referring to a previous reply—
that the Government believed that the right method of helping the elderly was to help them with cash."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 1248.]
On 1st July, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport also rejected a request from me that something should be done, and, if I may say so, rejected it with quite a lot of heat. The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North described this as "Socialist agitation for concessionary fares". Just imagine the noble Lord describing it in this way! I quoted the case of an old man who had to go twice a week to the chest clinic and to pay 1s. 4d. each way, and the noble Lord described it as "Socialist agitation for concessionary fares".
I wrote to the Prime Minister, and I enclosed a duplicate of a letter from an old-age pensioner. I offered to meet the Prime Minister and to discuss the matter with him. The only reply I have had is a terse acknowledgment from his Private Secretary. This is from

a Prime Minister who, when he emerged, promised on television that he would reply to all letters.
In a supplementary question following somebody else's Question, I referred to the Prime Minister's discourtesy in the House. After I had done so, I got a reply returning the old-age pensioner's letter, but saying nothing about my request to see him to discuss the matter. I received that reply from the Prime Minister—I hope that the House will notice this—on 7th July. On 8th July, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) received a similar reply, rejecting any amelioration of the problem.
On 8th July, however, there was a reply to a Written Question put down the night before by an hon. Member opposite. On the day on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North got his reply, a reply was given to a Written Question put down the night before, and that reply appeared to be a complete about-turn by the Government. As in 1955, under the pressure of an imminent General Election, the Government decided to do something.
I want, however, to read this reply to the House, because there are a number of catches in it. Had it been a straightforward reply, I do not suppose that this debate would have taken place today. Let us see what it said on 8th July. It was as follows:
I am getting in touch with the local authorities concerned with a view to reaching agreement with them as to what amendments of the law are required to secure that their powers to grant travel concessions under the 1955 Act are not eroded. Subject to our reaching a satisfactory agreement on these lines with the local authorities concerned it is our intention to introduce the necessary legislation next Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 116.]
The first big snag is that the Government will not be in office next Session. But a Labour Government will introduce a general enabling Measure as one of its first Measures after the election. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) does not believe that the Labour Party will win the election, he is the only person in the country who does not. I repeat: the Labour Party, as one of its first Measures after the election, will introduce a general enabling Measure.
That means, however, that the old, the blind and the disabled will have to wait six months. Whoever wins the election, it cannot be done in less than six months. The Government's attitude means, therefore, that with the best will in the world there will be a delay of six months before anything happens.
That interesting reply by the Government which I have quoted states that they will take steps to ensure that the
powers to grant travel concessions under the 1955 Act are not eroded.
The substitution of diesel buses for trolleybuses and the subsequent extinction of the concession might be regarded as erosion—clearly it is—and this might be put right, because a concession existed in 1955. But what about a bus route to a new estate which did not exist in 1955? In this case, there is no erosion, because the route did not exist in 1955. Therefore, no concession granted under the 1955 Act has been eroded. A completely new concession is required. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is one of the major anomalies under the Act? It is not a question of eroding the 1955 Act. It is something entirely new which is required.
If the clever little formula in the Government's reply means what it says, if their words have the normal English meaning, it is completely inadequate and we reject it as nothing more than an electoral subterfuge. It is a subterfuge by a discredited Government who have their back to the wall.
Of course, the discussions with the local authorities are limited to preventing erosion. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite have followed the point which I have been making. I have tried to spell it out in simple terms so that even an hon. Member opposite can understand it. The discussions with the local authorities under this formula are limited to preventing erosion. How can they discuss the provision of a concession on a new bus route which has come into existence since 1955? Presumably, they cannot go outside the formula.
The anomalies under the Act are known, and known precisely. The Ministry of Transport knows exactly what the anomalies are. There are about 10 anomalies and they are known

exactly and precisely by every local authority. The only answer which will deal with all them is a general enabling Bill.
Last week, this House put through a Bill on Malta. We put it through in a few hours. I now, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, challenge the Government to put before the House in the next four days an enabling Bill which will give local authorities their freedom in this matter and we will pass it in a few hours. I have consulted my friends in the other place and they have agreed to put it through equally expeditiously. I challenge the Government to bring such a Bill before the House in the next four days, If they will, we will ensure that it becomes law before the end of the present Parliament.

Sir Kenneth Thompson: Why is that not in the Motion?

Mr. Short: I am coming to the Motion.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton has been, perhaps, the most reasonable Member on the other side of the House. I have re-read his speech on this matter. He took a much more humane and sensible line than almost anybody on the benches opposite.

The Motion censures the Government for two reasons. First, what the Government are proposing to do is quite inadequate and, in any event, it involves a delay of six months. Secondly, we censure the Government because of their intransigence and their rigid refusal to inject justice and sanity into this matter during the past 10 years until faced with the imminent prospect of electoral defeat.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I followed with interest every word that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said, and I have the feeling that throughout his remarks he has confused sentiment with substance. I welcome the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others of my right hon. Friends. It is much better that we should ensure that the value of concessions is not eroded. I am interested in why this subject has


been raised. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has said that concessions have been given by the Government both in 1955 and now and that this was done for electoral purposes. I am interested to note that the hon. Member's Bill, which was enacted by this House, was dated just before the General Election in 1955.
We need to bear in mind the difference between giving benefit to a limited number of pensioners, however well deserving, and giving a cash benefit which can be used by pensioners at their discretion. I am also interested to observe that the Opposition this year have not had one Supply Day to deal with the matter of pensions and National Insurance. We are dealing with pensioners who, in their own journal, The Pensioner's Voice of December, 1963—

Mr. E. G. Willis: It does not circulate in Scotland.

Mr. Webster: I dare say that the hon. Member can read English. If he cannot, I as a Scot with an English constituency will interpret the wording for him, and I think that he will find it useful. It comes under the heading "This concession business ", and refers to the accepting of such a device which the official journal of the Old-Age Pensioners Association deplores and finds much less satisfactory than the granting and the continuing of granting of an adequate pension throughout. I am interested that in the last week of this Parliament immediately before the General Election the hon. Gentleman comes forth with this sort of stuff in order to get sympathy—

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman may recollect that, unfortunately—he may think otherwise—I have been ill for very many months in this Parliament. I gave notice when I was ill and as soon as I returned I introduced a Private Member's Bill, as I have done on many occasions during the past 10 years.

Mr. Webster: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was ill. I welcome him back in vigour and strength, as we have seen tonight. But it is interesting to me that both his campaigns have culminated immediately before a General Election.
The Opposition mount this campaign over a section of the community, which

gets them a great deal of publicity and support among the electorate. They do this rather than challenge the Government on their main pension programme and rather than give their own programme for the pensioners. The Opposition have mounted Supply Days on every topic on which they thought they could defeat the Government, on sport and leisure, the cost of living and others things which, I agree, matter very much, but they have never once raised the subject of the actual pension, and that is what a great many pensioners in my constituency who do not live on bus routes feel most strongly about.
The hon. Gentleman said that we have done nothing for the pensioner. The Labour Party has talked about a half-term pension, and it seems to rely on slogans rather than substance. Its record is indefensible. It seems to prefer concessions to substance. I remember the steam which hon. Members opposite raised over the tobacco concession. I am a smoker and may later benefit from the concession, but not everybody can use it. We believe that we should give financial assistance in order to avoid only certain sections receiving the benefit.
We come back again to the article in the December issue of the old-age pensioners' official organ which talks about this playing on their sentiments as an indignity upon them. Let us consider this for a moment. We are told that we do not do anything for the retirement pensioner. I would remind the House that the pension which was granted in 1947 remained exactly the same for the rest of the term of office of the Labour Government. I am not mistaking their promises, which are very vague, with their actual achievement. The pension remained the same until immediately before the General Election. During that period, the cost of living went up very much higher than the 4s. rise in the pension given on the eve of the General Election. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that this is the case.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Surely the hon. Member remembers that when the Labour Party came to power the old-age pension was 10s. a week and when Labour went out it was 32s. a week. If the hon. Gentleman


claims that the only increase in the old-age pension was 4s., how did he arrive at that figure?

Mr. Webster: I will explain why. The National Insurance Act, 1947, was a Measure based on the Beveridge Report, which was commissioned by the Coalition Government, and it was based on a principle which was thoroughly agreed and accepted by both sides. The pension was 26s. 8d.—the hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong—and it was raised to 30s. for men over 70 and women over 65. Fair shares for all we had! The pension was raised by 4s. and the value of it was eroded by 6s. because of the rise in the cost of living.
Then the pension went up from 30s. for a single man to 67s. 6d. a rise of 100 per cent. The pensioner realises that this is of greater value than a fractional benefit given to a certain section of the community and paid for by all as ratepayers. The hon. Member said that it will not cost the ratepayers anything. This is the typical Socialist story, that it will not cost anything. That is not so. It will cost the other fellow something, and that means the nation as a whole.
In 1951 a married couple received 50s. or 40s. a week according to whether they were over 70 or 65. Now they are receiving 109s. a week. Again it has more than doubled. During that period the cost of living has gone up 50 per cent. We appreciate that certain sections of the retirement pensioner community do not go entirely on the Cost of Living Index for their general purchasing. The cost of food index is of more importance to them, and that has gone up by 59 per cent. On both counts, this is better for them than a fractional benefit given to certain sections who happen to live near a bus stop.
I am quoting the London and Cambridge statistics. We hear about the wicked Tories and how cruel they are to the deserving poor. In 1951 the percentage of the gross national product spent on the retirement pensioner was 2·3. In 1949, two years previously, it had been 2·5 per cent. So even that was eroded. We are getting a contrast of sentiment and what actually happened. Today the percentage of the gross national product spent on the retirement pensioner is 3·6. That is an em-

phatic improvement, and I am glad to find that the Opposition are now sitting quiet and listening to the actual substance.

Mr. Loughlin: We have heard this record before.

Mr. Webster: There is another reason why the Opposition are quiet and why the debate is on this subject and not on pensions. We want to know what the Labour Party's plans really are. I believe that their plans are kept very much in the dark so that they can get their hands on the occupational pensions schemes and use those funds to buy shares in industry as a form of back-door nationalisation. We want to know about this We want to get at the facts. We want to get the sentimental stuff away from this.
We are making certain that the principle here is not eroded. We are also making certain that the Government's greatest effort shall be to make a general improvement in the pension, as we have done in the past. It should be known that this is the Government's record, and that the Government will stand by their word. I hope it will be realised that in this General Election year this is the Opposition's bait for the electorate in an attempt to get control, and that it represents a sentimental approach by the Opposition without the substance which is necessary.

Mr. Willis: This is most interesting but—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I am not quite sure what the position is. Has the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) given way?

Mr. Webster: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I had finished.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. George Thomas.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) addressed us as though we were an election meeting. He succeeded within a short time in distorting more facts than I have heard him submit during the whole period of his membership of this House.

Mr. Webster: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me one fact I have distorted?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member is very impatient. I have only just started. I think it pitiful that hon. Members opposite should try to avoid the main issue which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). My hon. Friend made an unanswerable case but all we have had from the Government is a blatant example of trying to use the old folk in the General Election.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare used two arguments. First, he said that the old folk did not want this concession and then, secondly, that it was a bait to get their votes. He cannot have it both ways. He must make up his mind whether this is a bait and the old-age pensioners want it, or that they do not want it and it therefore ceases to be a bait.
I have the honour to be president of the Cardiff Area Council of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners Association. In that area, we represent 4,000 pensioners in the City of Cardiff, and at the area meetings that I have attended regularly over the past few years there has been agitation for this concession Thatagitation has now sharpened because of increased transport fares, especially since it is clear that the old folk are not going to get a pension from this Government that is adequate to live on without recourse to the National Assistance Board.
During the past few days I have received a petition signed by 3,000 pensioners in Cardiff. The signatures were collected by Mr. Ivor Jones, himself an old-age pensioner and a very sick man. He found ready response in the city among those who believe that the local authority ought to have the right to grant concessionary fares for pensioners and, I believe, for other categories in the city as well.
The Government have a shocking record in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has submitted his Bill in Session after Session during the past 10 years. It has been my privilege to be one of its sponsors. But every time it has been blocked by Government supporters. They have stayed on Fridays to kill it and if by chance the Bill has ever reached the Committee stage they have killed it there.
Now the Government have deliberately created the impression in the country that, if the country is misguided enough to return them, they will introduce legislation granting the right to give concessionary fares for old folk. That is the belief that has been spread abroad by the statements of the Minister. But, as my hon. Friend has made clear, that is not at all the intention of the party opposite. They intend merely to play with the 1955 Act.
I believe that it is wicked to tell the old folk that they must go to the back of the queue once again; that they must wait until next winter before anything can be done for them. If the will to put this matter right were there, both the pension would have been made adequate without a pensioner having to go to the National Assistance Board and my hon. Friend's Bill would have been passed.
Only a month ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister that, if the Government introduced a Bill to grant these concessions, it could go through in one day. The Government refused. Shortly afterwards they introduced the Malta Independence Bill. Why could not they have introduced my hon. Friend's Bill, since there would have been no opposition to it from this side of the House or in another place? The truth is that the only hope for the old folk to get these concessionary fares is a change of Government, and I believe that the country will take this as but one more indication of the necessity for change.
I promised to speak for five minutes only, and I shall keep my word, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to know. But I say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare—for the time being—that he has not helped himself by his distortion of facts and that he has not clouded the issue in the minds of the electorate.

Mr. Webster: Will the hon. Member quote me one distortion?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Member were here in the next Parliament, I would. The reform for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central asks is long overdue and it is disgraceful that the Government have not already introduced it.

8.26 p.m.

Sir Leslie Thomas: I listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and I congratulate him on his persistence throughout 10 years. But I cannot do so on his consistency in the light of the arguments that have been adduced against him. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having called me at this moment but, having listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, (Mr. G. Thomas), I go no further than to say that, in the family of Welsh Thomases, there are saints and sinners and doubters and non-doubters.
I want to take up the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has just made. If he believes it, why does not he encourage his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central to try to reintroduce the tobacco concession?

Mr. Willis: Because he wants a transport concession.

Sir L. Thomas: That does not matter. The tobacco concession could have been included in the Motion as well as in the Bill. I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, for he has been so persistent in this campaign, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has not adduced one argument in favour of this concession.
I venture to suggest that there are not four or five constituencies with such a high proportion of old-age pensioners as that which I have the honour to represent. If we were to accept what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central suggests, what would happen to my old-age pensioners? They have not got public service transport. What is to be the attitude of the Government to the form of transport which would be available to old-age pensioners if this Motion were accepted? The situation is utterly ridiculous. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) on his persistency, but not on his consistency, because this form of Motion is an insult to all those who are receiving a retirement pension, to all those who are still mentally competent.
Why should the hon. Gentleman dictate to the man over 65 and the woman over 60 how they should spend their money,

which is exactly what he is doing? This is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite are dictating to the old-age pensioners how they should spend their money. What about the other concessions which could be given? I have a tremendous number of friends in my constituency who are old-age pensioners, some lucky enough to possess cars, many with sons and daughters and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law prepared to take them around, and many who prefer to walk. Why should we in the House of Commons decide how those people should spend their money? All the hon. Gentleman is saying is that immediately a man becomes a retirement pensioner, he becomes senile. I disagree, for there is no generation more independent than that.

Mr. Short: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the middle of his full spate. These concessions have been enjoyed for 60 or 70 years in some cases. The simple issue is that we want them to continue and he does not.

Sir L. Thomas: That is so. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because these concessions have been in being for 60 or 70 years they are right and justified? I have said on the public platform many times that if we are to give a concession to retirement pensioners, it must be equitable for everyone in that section of the community. There was once a concession for tobacco which had to be redeemed, but never once have hon. Members opposite attempted to reintroduce it.
There are two things of prime importance to elderly people, and it is elderly people whom we are discussing. One is food and the other is warmth. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to laugh, but she does not have in her constituency the proportion of elderly people which I have in mine. I was saying that if we give a concession to elderly people, we must make it a concession which is common to all and equitable to all.

Mr. Short: Fair shares in misery.

Sir L. Thomas: Fair shares for all, which is not what the Motion proposes. There are two things, food and warmth—

Mr. G. Thomas: Three and six for coal.

Sir L. Thomas: But the hon. Gentleman will never want to go back to the pre-war days when coal was cheap and the miners suffered. That is one of the reasons why some of us are on these benches.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of my interjection, which I should not have made sitting down. Is he aware that, through the National Assistance Board, the Government allow 3s. 6d. a week to those who are too poor to live on their pension as a coal allowance in the winter? Is that the warmth he is talking about?

Sir L. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we allow all sorts of disregards. I am rather shocked that he should intervene and say something which he did not intend to say.
If we are going to make a concession to old-age pensioners, it must be equitable throughout that section of the community. If we are going to make concessions on transport, they must be made on transport in all sections of the community, private enterprise and others.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has not told us how he would deal with this problem in London. In Herne Bay in my constituency there is probably a higher proportion of old age pensioners who use private transport. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to arrange for subsidies on this? This is a very important point, and I think that the hon. Gentleman in introducing this Motion has underrated not only the intelligence, but the strength of character, of the old-age pensioners who do not want charity, because this is what it is in the form in which the hon. Gentleman is proposing to give it.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morris: I welcome the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir L. Thomas), because I have been impressed by what he said. His speech and that of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) characterise the Conservative Party's attitude to the elderly people of this country Hon. Gentlemen opposite have interest, they have sympathy, but they lack the will to take action.
I would have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have resisted the temptation to make the point that the endeavours of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) are mere electioneering. Nobody in this House has been more consistent, or has persevered so much, as my hon. Friend in his efforts to provide concessionary fares for old-age pensioners, the blind and the disabled.
It is not my intention to detain the House for very long. The point that I wish to make concerns the erosion which has taken place in the level of pensions. The Government have now created a situation where the elderly, the blind, and the disabled are becoming virtually socially isolated within the community. They are unable to participate in social life as fully as they might because of the limitations of their existing contacts.
One hon. Gentleman opposite asked, "Do the elderly want this concession?" Every hon. Member is entitled to his own view. Recently, I came across an elderly gentleman in my constituency. He had almost a poetic turn of mind. We were talking about concessionary fares, and he quoted these immortal words:
What is life, if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?".
He added, almost cynically, "But I wish that I had the facility to stare at something more beautiful than these four walls and that lot over there". "That lot over there" was the factory in which he had spent 40 years of his life. Because of the limitations which the present level of pensions imposes on him, he finds himself socially isolated and his movements restricted.
Regardless of which Government win the next General Election, we ought to be directing our attention to the need to do something about this important question of concessionary fares. I could quote a variety of sources to illuminate the circumstances which exist in this respect. I wish to refer to the Report on Social Contacts In Old Age—a survey carried out by the Liverpool Personal Service Society in conjunction with Liverpool University. It is appropriate that this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) will be winding up the debate on this side of the House.
The Report makes one or two illuminating points. It refers to the Childwall ward of the city. It said:
There are plenty of open spaces readily accessible, but a visit to a club or cinema or to a church of their own denomination involves a bus ride for many people … Opportunities for recreation out of doors are limited except for those people who are prepared to travel some distance by bus.
Dealing with the Norris Green Housing Estate it said:
All the shops are concentrated on the main roads running past or through the estate and for many of the old people shops as well as churches, clubs and cinemas can only be reached by bus.

Sir K. Thompson: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to be unfair. Will he point out that Liverpool Corporation grants concessions for pensioners to travel, including travel on the service through Norris Green, which is part of my constituency?

Mr. Morris: I intend to make some of those points later.
As the hon. Member rightly says, the Report points out that when the survey was made Liverpool Corporation had a scheme under which concessionary fares were granted to elderly people over 70 years of age, and it makes a very significant reference to this. It says:
Many of those who were over 70 and, therefore, had free travel warrants for buses between rush hours made use of them to ride to the Pier Head, sit there for a while and come back again … They appeared to derive a great deal of enjoyment from this.
Even more significantly, the Report adds:
Pensioners under the age of 70 could not really afford the fare several times a week.
Hon. Members opposite may feel that I am concentrating more upon urban areas than rural areas, and I will, therefore, make a brief quotation from the Report on the Welfare of Old People in Rural Areas, prepared by the National Association of Parish Councils. As a result of reading this document one learns that
The basic needs of old people are much the same in town and country, but the countryside problem is possibly the greater because of the smaller numbers concerned and the difficulties of transport.
The difficulty of transport for the isolated and elderly members of the

community is a question of vital importance. Over the next 20 years it is estimated that there will be an increase of 1,800,000 in the number of old-age pensioners.
Somebody has said that this is a sectional interest. Whether or not that is so, it is a very important interest. Contributions to the debate so far have tended to deal with the concession itself and the effect on old-age pensioners, the disabled and the blind who come within the terms of the concession. But there is another aspect of the question. We must examine the consequences of it. We have to look at the impact it may have on the public transport industry generally.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) made a valid point that in his constituency there are no municipal transport authorities. He asked what would be the effect of the concession in areas where there were only privately-operated transport undertakings. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there has, over recent years been a growing contraction in the number of passengers carried by public transport. This has happened primarily in the off-peak periods. During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1954, municipal public transport undertakings carried 6,858,894,000. During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1964, the figure dropped to 5,506,480,000. This represents a drop of 19·7 per cent. during that 10-year period. By providing this concession we should be doing a service for the municipal passenger transport industry.

Mr. G. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Morris: Let me go on to deal with the point made by the hon. Member, because it is important.
The private bus undertaking is fast disappearing. I do not know how many hon. Members have read the Report of the Transport Holding Company, which was set up with the authority of this House. The Report for 1964 indicates that this company, which is a nationalised concern, controls, either wholly or partly, one-third of the 76,000 buses and coaches in this country. Excluding the small operators engaged in private hire work and touring, the company, through its associates and


subsidiaries, is responsible for 80 per cent. of the vehicle mileage involved. Almost the whole of the British public transport undertakings are either municipally owned or owned through the holding company.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point completely. The municipalities own a minority of buses, one-third of the nationalised industry. One-third is partially owned by the nationalised industry. Why should concessions be given to a minority when the majority of old-age pensioners who travel on buses would receive no benefit?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comment, but his figures bear little relation to the facts.

Mr. Willis: They bear little relation to the argument.

Mr. Morris: It is not true to allege that either the municipalities or the Transport Holding Company own a minority of the buses used for public transport.

Mr. G. Wilson: They do.

Mr. Morris: I am reading from the report of the company which is responsible for 80 per cent. of the vehicle mileage involved. This is not a party tract or political propaganda. It is the report of a company for which this House is responsible.
I do not wish to pursue this argument at length. I hope that I have already said sufficient to persuade the House to support the endeavours of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central and that in so doing we shall be doing a service to the elderly, the blind and the disabled, and also a service to the public transport industry.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I feel very strongly on this issue, and I can say in perfect honesty that I would have voted for the Opposition tonight had it not been for the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 8th July. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) queried the fact that I put down a Question for Written Answer on 8th July. Perhaps I can illuminate the position somewhat

when I say that, like him, I was rather shocked by the reply that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary on 1st July.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central suggested during business questions to the Leader of the House that the question of concessionary fares should be raised in the transport debate that was to take place on 8th July, and it was to find out whether there was a change of heart on the part of the Government, which I believed there was at that time, that I put down the Question. Had there been no change of heart, I intended to attack the Government in that debate. If any hon. Member cares to read my speech on that occasion, he will see that I said quite specifically that I scrapped my speech because I came prepared to attack the Government but that in view of the Answer of my right hon. Friend I had to change my tactics.
I feel that the 1955 Act is a very bad one. Through that Act we have had many anomalies, and it has meant, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central stated, that on new bus routes, serving new housing estates since 1955, pensioners have not been able to use their concessionary passes, and that in Newcastle, where trolleybuses have been changed to diesel buses, the pensioners travelling on the trolleybuses could make use of the concession, but pensioners travelling on the diesel buses could not. This is nonsensical. Some retirement pensioners have concessions in certain parts of the city and other retirement pensioners have not because they live in a part of the city which has a new bus route, or live in a new housing estate, or their area was served by diesel buses and not trolleybuses.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central was rather cynical about my right hon. Friend's reply on 8th July. I believe that he was wrong. He and I have seen eye to eye on a great deal of this issue. Since I was elected I have consistently fought for this idea of concessionary fares. I think that great care has to be taken to ensure that whatever legislation is brought in is completely fair. It would be a bad thing—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) wishes to say something, why does he not get up and say it?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) about the "fighting" mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), because I have not known him do any fighting. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member put a couple of Questions on the Order Paper, but that is not "fighting". "Fighting" is voting against the Government.

Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Member would listen occasionally instead of chatting so much, he might learn something, but that is very doubtful. I advise him to read the speech I made in that debate.

Mr. Lewis: I was in the Chamber.

Mr. Montgomery: It is a pity that the hon. Member came into the debate.

Mr. Lewis: I interjected on the last occasion and I was present on both occasions.

Mr. Montgomery: This new legislation must be completely fair and we must try to avoid any anomalies such as have arisen ever since the 1955 Act. It is vitally important that there should be full discussions between the Ministry and local authorities. It has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite that it would be perfectly possible for this legislation to go through in four days. I would be grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he could answer that point, and could say whether it would be possible to complete these negotiations and put the legislation through before the Summer Recess.
I want to know whether the discussions will be between the Ministry of Transport and local authorities, or between the Ministry and the Association of Municipal Corporations. This is vital. I am led to believe that the Association is rather lukewarm about concessionary fares. Therefore, the discussions should be with local authorities which at present have concessionary fares. I should also like to know whether, when discussions take place, account will be taken of the people of pensionable age who are not in receipt of retirement pensions.
Many of these people are often much worse off than those who have retire-

ment pensions, particularly those who not only have retirement pensions but private pensions as well. In the scheme in Newcastle, to obtain concessionary fares a man must produce a retirement pension book. If he cannot do so a concession is not given. A great deal of grievance is caused among the small minority of people who, nevertheless, are not very well off but have to pay the full fare, while often people in a much better financial position are allowed to travel with concessionary fares and either pay nothing or very little. In Newcastle, the concessionary fare is 1d. during off-peak hours.
These points are important and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them. I realise that we have not very much time for this debate.

Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. Member has not much time left here.

Mr. Montgomery: The electors will decide that.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give answers to the questions I have asked. On the answers will depend whether or not I vote for the Government Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I certainly could not vote for the Motion, which I believe to be nothing more or less than blatant electioneering.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: This has been an important debate and I will not delay the House for long because I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak. Without wishing to comment on all the previous speeches, suffice it to say that the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir L. Thomas) was dramatic, though totally unconvincing.
Despite statements made by the Government in recent years about the cost of living, and the announcement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this month, it seems that they have no desire to reduce the cost of living; that is, unless they are willing to grant concessionary fares. This concession on public service vehicles would be welcomed by all old-age pensioners as a small but important contribution towards reducing their cost of living. Although the Government have said


many things in recent years about helping old-age pensioners, there has been little action.
When the Government consider the unhappiness that is created by old-age pensioners having to pay full fares on public transport, I am sure they must realise that a concession of this sort is very necessary. Many pensioners lose family ties because they are unable to pay the fares to see their families, and it is regrettable that sons and daughters—perhaps because they have children and are unable to visit their parents—are not visited by old-age pensioners because they cannot afford the fares. All people have a desire to visit their loved ones. In refusing to grant concessionary fares the Government are refusing to accept this fact. As the electors watch the death of the Tories in this Parliament, if the Government do not say once and for all that they approve of concessionary fares, the final death blow will be struck. It will mean the electors writing the obituary of the Tory Party once and for all.
Politics apart, I wish to draw the attention of the House to Wales. Geographical conditions and high fares result in old-age pensioners in my constituency and other parts of Wales having to travel great distances. The total number of people in Wales receiving retirement pensions—these figures are published in the Welsh Digest of Statistics—number 308,000, which represents a very high proportion considering the size of the Welsh population. Between the age groups 65 to 85 that is the figure, and between the age groups 60 to 64 the figure is 174,000. Between 65 and 69 it is 120,000, and between 70 and 74 it is 91,000. Considering the total number of households in Wales receiving supplementary grants by way of National Assistance, we see that in 1963 700,000 people, or 32 per cent. of the population, would have been in receipt of concessionary fares had they been available.
Despite all this, in the constituency which I represent there are no public service vehicles. Nevertheless, if the Government were to back concessionary fares on public vehicles I am sure that the private operators would be given an impetus to follow suit and also give concessionary fares. Incidentally, from where I live to Swansea High Street Station costs

1s. 6d. return on the bus. Old-age pensioners who desire to meet their friends in the centre of the town to continue their social life must pay these fares.
In reality, no one can envisage any opposition to this Measure. I hope, therefore, that the Government will delay no further but that the people of Wales and Britain generally will see unanimity in the House and that we will agree to have concessionary fares. If the Government do not agree I regret that the finger of the electorate will write and, having writ, will move on to record in history the fact that the Tory Party wrote their own epitaph—"They shamed the parents of the nation."

9.5 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: I have listened with intense interest to the speeches of hon. Members opposite trying to give the impression that the Conservatives are, as one hon. Member said, kindly and sympathetic, but never able to do anything about the aged. It may interest the hon. Member to know that Brighton has had a Conservative council for very many years, and that only this morning I had the great pleasure of going round, with the welfare committee, some of our old people's homes. We have started no less than 14 of these homes in the last few years and they are amongst the finest I have seen in any part of the country.
We are told that we Conservatives are doing nothing, but I cannot help but wonder why Socialist Members do not get their own Socialist councils to pass resolutions asking the Members to bring forward Motions and Bills, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) has done—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: We are doing so.

Sir W. Teeling: Not one hon. Member has mentioned that fact; hon. Members opposite have merely been speaking for themselves.
On the other hand. Brighton's Conservative council has already gone a long way towards getting this done. We have decided that after the General Election we will put forward our own Bill to achieve this object. It is not uninteresting to see what the town clerk says about the subject—it shows that there are at least two sides to the question. In his


letter to the council, the town clerk says:
The position created by the 1955 Act was considered in some quarters to be unsatisfactory and two conferences of representatives of local authorities with transport undertakings were held, but their desire to see amending legislation never came to anything because, first, the Association of Municipal Corporations was not in favour, secondly, the Municipal Passenger Transport Association was neutral, and, thirdly, the Ministry was, I believe, not particularly sympathetic.
The over-riding consideration which influenced the A.M.C. was that since 1948 the State accepted the duty to provide adequately for the financial needs of those whose resources were otherwise insufficient, and that concessions of one kind or another to meet inadequate pensions ought not to be borne by the Rate Fund, nor, alternatively, by the remainder of the travelling public, this being one step towards disrupting the financial settlement of responsibility as between the State and the local authorities when the Poor Law régime was brought to an end.
That is what our town clerk found from the municipal organisations.
But our town council was not to be put off by that. Councillor Mrs. Vale brought forward a notice of motion, and the council later resolved as follows:
That this Council, being aware of the legal difficulties in connection with this matter, nevertheless express their complete sympathy with the objects of the original motion"—
that is, to go back to the pre-1955 days:
and request the Members of Parliament for the Borough to use their best endeavours to bring about any necessary change in the law to enable concessionary fares at off-peak periods to be granted to the senior citizens of Brighton.
Incidentally, we have been talking in this debate about the blind and the old-age pensioners, but we in Brighton prefer to speak of our senior citizens. Anyone over 65 years of age is put in that group.
In most areas about 12½ per cent. of the population is over 65 years of age; with us, it is no less than 17½ per cent. In addition, Brighton is very hilly, and it is extremely difficult for old people to get about. We had a concession before 1955 for school children, for people connected with the bus companies, and their families, and, oddly enough, councillors, also. All these are allowed to remain at present, but we are all most anxious to get this problem solved.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central that it would be better if local

councils were allowed to make their own decisions on these things. Those councils that really want to give these concessions are prepared to bring Bills forward, and we would then ask the Government to be fair and not try to alter the Measure in any particular detail. I am perfectly certain that when we on this side get back into power, after the coming General Election, many of us will do our level best to make sure we get what we want.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) that it would be a good thing if this matter could be left to the local authorities. This is precisely what the Motion asks for, but this has hardly been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. The House has not been asked to give any concession. All that it is asked to do is to permit local authorities to give it. This is the answer to questions about those local authorities that own their own undertakings. I cannot see why if Edinburgh Corporation and its citizens expressed a wish to help their old-age pensioners they should not be allowed to do so. The House has not been asked to do anything other than to permit that to be done. All the rubbish that we heard from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) had nothing at all to do with the Motion.
We are asked whether or not a local authority should have the power to initiate schemes to help pensioners, the blind and the disabled. I am wholeheartedly for their having that power. The old-age pensioners in my constituency want this concession. I have been asked about concessionary fares more often in the last 10 years than I have been asked any other question. I can almost bet when the question will come up at my meetings. My local authority wants this power, and it is not a Socialist local authority. At the moment it is evenly divided between Conservatives and Labour, with a few Liberals holding the balance. Edinburgh Corporation wants it and it has written to the Prime Minister and wants to see him about it. The Corporation is trying to do what it can to gain for itself power to give its old-age pensioners a little treat by way of a concession on its buses.
The Corporation does all sorts of things for all kinds of other people. It


sets up schemes limited in their character to children or other classes within the community, and there is neither rhyme nor reason about its inability to do this for old-age pensioners. The Government say to the local authorities, "We know better than you do". The Government used to talk about "Whitehall knows best", because one of my hon. Friends happened to use that phrase, but the Government do not simply say it—they act as if Whitehall knows best.
Why should the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport dictate to Edinburgh Corporation what it should do? He makes no contribution to the Edinburgh transport system. He does not even pay rates in Edinburgh. He is an interloper there, occupying a room at the top of St. Andrew's House simply because Edinburgh welcomes him there. Why then should he dictate to the Corporation the manner in which it should treat its old-age pensioners? Do I understand that if Edinburgh Corporation said, "We will hold a large Christmas party in Waverley market for the old-age pensioners" the Government would say, "No you must not"? But that is the argument. Would hon. Members say, "You must not give a Christmas party to your old-age pensioners because you are not doing it for everyone else"? What a piece of nonsense. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
Hon. Members opposite prated week after week about giving the local authorities more power. "Trust the local authorities", they said, "Give them freedom to spend their own money". All right. Tonight, we shall be testing that in the Lobbies and we shall see how sincere hon. Members opposite really are. I bet that they will not trust the local authorities. They will not give the local authorities power to spend their own money when it comes to concessionary fares for old-age pensioners. It is about time hon. Members opposite faced the fact of what they are doing.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare gave us as the most extraordinary account of pensions that I have heard for a long time. He would not give way to me at the time, and I tell him now that his account was so inaccurate

because he trusted his own Central Office propaganda leaflet. He did not even know what the pension was in 1945, and his Central Office had not told him. It had given him the wrong leaflet. I used to have a questioner at my meetings who came along with the same leaflet as the hon. Gentleman read out tonight, and he had not heard about the pension in 1945 either. He was like the hon. Gentleman, and about the same age, of course.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare never even mentioned the question we are discussing. When he reads his speech tomorrow, he will find that he never discussed the Motion at all. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) of making electioneering propaganda, but at least my hon. Friend spoke to the Motion.

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Willis: I am one of the most courteous Members, and I give way to anyone when I am given way to. If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to intervene, I probably should not have spoken tonight. I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman now. I am very sorry about that, and it really hurst me not to.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was entirely irrelevant to the Motion, though I am sure it will look handsome in his local Press. It was delivered entirely for electioneering purposes. It must have been; otherwise, he would have spoken about the Motion. He could not score any electioneering propaganda off the Motion, of course, so he dealt with other matters.
I ask the hon. Gentleman this question: does he think that a local authority should have the right to treat its old-age pensioners in a certain way, if it wants to?

Mr. Webster: I simply quoted the old-age pensioners' official organ as saying that they are more interested in the rate of pension than in this concession.

Mr. Willis: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. His speech was composed of the same sort of thing. I asked him a direct question: did he or did he not think that a local authority should have the right to give its pensioners a certain concession if the


local ratepayers wished to do so? He never answered that. He will have a chance to answer in the Division Lobby in about 40 minutes, and he will answer with his feet, not his head.
We in Edinburgh would be delighted to have the power to give this concession to our old-age pensioners. This is the view of all parties in Edinburgh. This applies to a council which is fairly evenly divided. It certainly applies to the Scottish Old-Age Pensioners' Association—and I say this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The Scottish Old-Age Pensioners' Association is 100 per cent. behind this Motion. The hon. Member need not quote things which we do not see in Scotland and which are alien to us. Everyone in Scotland wants this authority. I hope that tonight we shall manage to defeat the Government on this matter, and I hope that we shall give local authorities the right to do as they wish in relation to the manner in which they treat local citizens.

9.21 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have listened to all the speeches from hon. Members opposite and I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling)—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. For the sake of the record, may I point out that an hon. Member on this side of the House rose to his feet to continue the debate from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Braddock.

Mrs. Braddock: May I start again?
I have listened to all the speeches from hon. Members opposite, and with the exception of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion I am certain that none of them has read this Motion or knows anything about it or what its implications are. It would be very useful if they read the Motion. It reads:
That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 in order to restore to local authorities the freedom to initiate schemes of concessionary fares to pensioners, the blind and the

disabled which they enjoyed until November 1954, and to deal with the anomalies which arose therefrom.
Only one speech has been made about the local authority responsibility. I am certain that quite a number of hon. Members do not appreciate what the situation is with reference to the powers of local authorities. Knowing that this matter would be of great concern, I requested my local authority, of which I have been a member for over 32 years, to give me a statement of the position showing what Liverpool were doing, the powers which Liverpool had under the 1955 Act and what is the situation now because of the changes which have taken place in the residence of people since 1955. To get this completely correct, so that there can be no question about it, I shall read the statement which the local authority gave me:
Section 1(3) of the above Act limits the concessions which can be granted by a local authority to those which are were being granted at any date in 1954 not later than 30th November, 1954. The Corporation grant travel concessions to persons of 70 years of age and over in receipt of a National Insurance retirement pension or a non-contributory old-age pension, to blind persons, to ex-Service men suffering from leg disability consequent upon war service, to disabled civilians who have lost a leg or legs owing to enemy action, and to scholars and to children under five years of age. The City Council have obtained, under the Act, a certificate from the Traffic Commissioners declaring the facilities which were being granted at 30th November, 1954. The area in which free travelling facilities are available include Liverpool, Bootle, Litherland Urban District and parts of Huyton-with-Roby Urban District. Kirkby Urban District, Prescot Urban District and Whiston Rural District. The certificate from the Traffic Commissioners is supported by a map defining the area in which free passes were being granted at 30th November, 1954.
May I break for a moment and say that this map is there for the use of the officials of the corporation who issue the certificates and that nobody can go over the limit of the map and its designated area.
In places like Liverpool and in other areas where there are new housing estates, where people are being asked to move, where, in Liverpool, the slums are the worst in the country, where people are being asked to move out of the central area over on to the other side beyond where the map line finishes, when older people who have lived in shocking conditions are being provided for in a place


which we in Liverpool call "on the other side of Macketts Lane"—they want better conditions; they are persuaded to accept them because they are told that they can have them now, and if they do not take them now they might be dead before they have the opportunity of having them in the central area.
If they go over to the other side of the line which is prepared on the map, the corporation cannot let them have their concessionary travel pass. It is taken from them. That must be happening in local government throughout the country where there have been changes in areas since 1955. If Liverpool has been given a line on a map outside which it cannot supply a concessionary pass, this must apply also to all the other local authorities in whose areas there have been changes since 1955. Things have changed considerably.
It is not a question of a person using a bus and paying for it and then, if in receipt of National Assistance, going to the National Assistance Board, and saying, "I have spent so much on visiting friends who lived next door to me before I was moved outside the concessionery fare area. Can I have three bob, because I have paid that for the bus?" That is a silly business and that is why I am so concerned about what the Minister of Transport says. These problems cannot be met by a means test at the National Assistance Board. We want to see the matter dealt with properly. I notice on the benches opposite my colleague from Liverpool, the hon. Member for Walton (Sir K. Thompson), who also knows the position in the city. This sort of position is being faced by many local authorities in whose areas there have been changes since the 1955 arrangement was made.
We are asking for an alteration, or, at least, a review of the present situation, so that if alterations are needed they can be put into effect. No suggestion by the Ministry of Transport that there will be some sort of increase in pensions or for pensioners who have had concessionary passes will meet the position.
To resume the report which I have had from Liverpool, it says:
The Act empowers a local authority to continue to provide the facilities which they provided in 1954, or grant lesser facilities, but they are unable to extend these facilities. The

effect of the Act so far as Liverpool is concerned is to limit the granting of the facilities to persons residing within an area defined on the map attached to the Certificate granted by the Traffic Commissioners under the Act, which Certificate is evidence of the facilities which were being granted in 1954.
The existing legal position creates anomalies not only in Liverpool but in many parts of the country and, in addition, prevents the City Council from making even minor adjustments in the concessions at present granted to old-age pensioners and others.
The difficulty which now arises is that residents in Kirkby Urban District and Whiston Rural District, outside the area shown on the map attached to the Certificate, cannot be issued with free passes so that the Corporation is in the position that some of its own tenants outside the City boundary receive passes whilst others do not.
The position is aggravated by the fact that many of the people transferred to Kirkby and Whiston and living outside the area in which free travel passes can be issued were themselves the holders of free passes when living in Liverpool and on their transfer to Kirkby and Whiston have been deprived of the passes they previously held.
So far as Netherton is concerned, the Corporation is not able to grant facilities to residents in this area as travel concessions were not being granted in that area in 1954"—
although the local authority buses use and go as far as those areas. So it is dependent not on where the Liverpool buses go, but on where one lives whether one can have a pass on a local authority bus. The statement goes on:
The City Council receives, from time to time, representations from responsible social welfare organisations about adjustments in the existing timing of travel concessions, but now, no matter how reasonable these adjustments may seem to be to the City Council, the Council has no power to grant them.
We are asking that the present conditions shall be looked at to see whether they require adjustment and amendment to meet the difficulties which have arisen since 1955. That was nine years ago, and a great many things can happen in nine years.
The statement goes on:
The City Council have from time to time placed on record their desire to see the Act of 1955 amended, and they have on a number of occasions supported efforts which were being made to have the Act amended. The Parliamentary (Special) Committee, at the request of the Passenger Transport Committee, decided to consider the question of including specific powers in the next General Powers Bill to enable the Corporation to grant facilities to old age pensioners residing within the area served by the Passenger Transport Department.
Last year a Private Members Bill"—


of which I was one of the signatories, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short)—
which sought to amend the Act of 1955 by giving local authorities operating passenger transport undertakings general powers to grant concessionary travel facilities, was introduced into the House but the Bill was dropped.
This is important. It shows how much local authorities are concerned about this. This applies not only to Liverpool, but to all local authorities which have concessionary passenger transport provisions.
The statement goes on:
On the instructions of the City Council, the Town Clerk wrote to the Liverpool Members of Parliament.
This was not only to the Labour side; it was to both sides.
stating that the Council would welcome their support for the Bill, which, in effect, sought to grant the very powers for which the City Council has been expressing support for some time.

Mr. L. M. Lever: And so has the Manchester Corporation.

Mrs. Braddock: This is the Bill which the Government refused to allow to proceed. Steps were taken to ensure that it did not reach its final stages. I have signed four or five Private Members' Bills and Private Members' Motions on this matter within the last few years, and each one has been out-worded or outvoted or stopped by hon. Members opposite who, I believe, do not understand, or did not understand, exactly what they meant. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) is making all sorts of comments. Before I read the last sentence of the Liverpool declaration, I would point out that if a local authority wanted to issue travel concessions on private buses, it ought to be able to pass a resolution through its council and make an agreement with private companies. But it cannot do that while things stand as they are. That is what we are concerned about. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro is prepared to understand what the position is. If local authorities were given powers to deal with this matter, they could make their own private arrangements on a payment basis, as

other local authorities do which run buses through their own areas.
When I was a member of the Liverpool Council, the areas surrounding Liverpool which I mentioned paid £2 a year to Liverpool Corporation so that their people could have concessionary passes. Why cannot that be done? It could be done under the powers that would be given by my hon. Friend's Bill. But it will not be done as long as we have the stubborn gang on the other side of the House, who are not prepared to deal with the situation that has arisen during this last 10 years but promise only to look at it in the next Parliament on the basis of National Assistance payments for bus travel where needed. That was the effect of what the Minister said.
The statement concludes:
It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the number of passes in use prior to the coming into force of the Travel Concessions Act, for as there were no charges made to local authorities at that time there was no incentive to ensure that passes were returned on the death or removal to another area of the holders. In the ten-year period before the Act some 40,000 passes were issued, out of these possibly only about 35,000 were in actual use in 1955, the holders of the remainder having died or removed to other areas. With the coming into operation of the new Act it was necessary to keep an accurate record of passes issued and in use to support the charges made to the City Council's rate fund and the rate funds of other authorities.
That is the position in almost every area issuing concessionary passes.
What is wrong with the system proposed by my hon. Friend? The local authority could make arrangements according to local circumstances. Would it not be better to allow them to do this rather than to impose a national Act laying down specific regulations for all areas, quite irrespective of the differences between them all?
The word "eroded", in the Amendment, seemed to me to be a strange word to use. I looked it up in the dictionary. The definition is:
To gnaw away, to eat away or to consume".
If they mean to "gnaw away", the Government have used the right word. They have gnawed away the concessions given to pensioners. I receive letter after letter about this from my constituents. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is receiving


complaints all the time about the fact that people who have been compelled or persuaded to move out of Liverpool, where they have had these passes, find—not having been warned beforehand—that they must now pay the full fares to visit the relatives and friends they have left behind.
It is time this matter was looked at properly and the Act brought up to date. It is almost 10 years since it was brought into operation. Things have changed. I hope sincerely that hon. Members opposite who have any sort of conscience will face the facts and will not allow themselves to be fobbed off by the sort of stuff thrown out by their party.
However, they will not be on those benches opposite soon. Indeed, perhaps that is the reason for their not wishing to do anything. We shall deal with the situation because we believe that this concession is essential and that the ratepayers have no objection at all to giving it to the elderly and the disabled.

9.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
welcomes the action announced by Her Majesty's Government to secure that the powers of local authorities to grant travel concessions under the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955, are not eroded".
There is one thing on which the House will agree and that is in paying tribute to the persistence of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), even if we cannot see eye to eye with him about everything. As the House knows, the hon. Member has an Act on concessionary fares to his credit already and has another Bill before the House. He referred to the Third Reading of his Act when, strange as it may seem in the light of later events, he said:
I am also extremely grateful to the Government for making the final stages of the Bill possible …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 897.]
However, this spirit of good fellowship did not last for very long, and for some time the hon. Gentleman has been trying to extend the scope of the 1955 Act.

Mr. Short: Of course I was grateful to the Government. If the Government

had not allowed that Measure to go through, all the old and blind and disabled would have lost everything. I was glad for a small mercy. But that was the time when I started to fight to get it enlarged.

Mr. Galbraith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that he was grateful to the Government at that time. Since then, he has been trying to extend the scope of the 1955 Act.
To begin with, he was rather a lone wolf, but on 28th April, this year, the Leader of the Opposition got on to the bandwagon. He even informed us at Question Time that day that he had made concessionary fares a main feature of the last election campaign. But the strange thing is that there is absolutely nothing about it in the 1959 election manifesto of the Labour Party.

Mrs. Braddock: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said, he would have known that it was because so many people from Liverpool had moved into my right hon. Friend's constituency that he had been inundated with requests. He has been representing his constituents.

Mr. Galbraith: There must be a misunderstanding between the hon. Lady and me. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he had made concessionary fares a main feature of the last election campaign and what I am saying is that the strange thing is that there is nothing at all about it in the 1959 election manifesto of the Labour Party; nor, so far as I can make out, is there anything about it in "Signposts for the Sixties". Instead, it is left to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, in a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, to tell us that this is now the official policy of the Opposition, while the leaders of the party, who should be doing this, are busily engaged in explaining away, as the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) did the other night, those sections of "Signposts for the Sixties" which the party likes but the country does not want to have.
No wonder the public is thoroughly mystified by the party opposite and no wonder the opinion polls show that its popularity is on the decline! This lack of public support is not surprising when, four days before Parliament adjourns for


its long Recess, the Opposition choose for one of their precious Supply Days a subject which has been debated ad nauseam. However, I am very glad, for if this is all that they can find wrong with us, it must mean that we are doing very well.
The history of this matter goes back to 1954. As we know, a certain Mr. Prescott then challenged the validity of free travel for old-age pensioners in Birmingham, and the Court of Appeal ruled that it was illegal for local authorities to grant and to support out of the general rate fund free travel for particular classes of persons. It was this situation which led the hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill in 1955.
There was no need, however, for the Government of the day to give it facilities, but the Bill was accepted by the Government on the limited basis that it would be right to legalise existing concessions for local authorities, and to allow these to be paid for from the rates if necessary. During the Second Reading of the Bill the then Parliamentary Secretary, who has already been referred to today, said that the Government had had to consider the matter not only from the purely technical transport point of view, but also from the point of view—and I should like the Opposition to note this—of broad human sympathy with those who were in danger of having taken away from them concessions which they had been accustomed to enjoy for a very long time.
In fact, our view was that it would be unfair to take away concessions which were being innocently enjoyed, and in the transport debate on 8th July of this year my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) referred to this when he said that once people had had the benefit of something
it hurts all the more if it is taken away ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1964; Vol. 698 c. 475.]
This is exactly the Government's view, but it is something which hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly do not seem always to understand, for a great deal of their purpose seems to be stimulated by a desire to pull down those whose standards are above the average. They do not seem to realise that nothing is absolute, everything is relative, and that a

person who is absolutely well off may find himself harshly treated if suddenly he is deprived of what he has been accustomed to enjoy.

Mr. Spriggs: If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) believes what he said, he will have an opportunity of proving that in the Division Lobby later.

Mr. Galbraith: My reply to that irrelevant interruption is that if the party opposite recognises this fact with regard to concessionary bus fares which have become eroded, I hope it will apply the same humane approach to other aspects of politics.
As has been explained in the course of the debate by many hon. Members, one of the major difficulties in this matter, from the point of view of some councils, is that there have been changes in circumstances since the 1955 Act was passed, and as a result councils are no longer able to operate concessions which formerly they were able to.
For example, there have been changes in routes with the result that concessions no longer apply to them, or in some cases buses have been substituted for trolley buses—and this I understand is what is happening in Newcastle-upon-Tyne—or in some cases people have been rehoused, as for example in Liverpool, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) referred, in such a way that the concession no longer applies to them although they still use corporation transport. The difficulty in Liverpool is, of course, a tribute to the success of our slum clearance and housing policies, and that the grand scale of their success should throw up some minor marginal difficulty is nothing to apologise about. I think that people would rather have it this way than stagnation, with little or no house building going on, which is what happened when the party opposite was in power.
We recognise that changes of the sort which I have mentioned might be introducing conditions entirely contrary to the spirit of the 1955 Act whose object was certainly to allow existing concessions to continue. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 4th June:
… if there are anomalies which are eroding the spirit of the 1955 Act, I am willing


to examine them".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 1248.]
It was as a result of this examination that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced in answer to a Question on 8th July that we would be
getting in touch with the local authorities concerned with a view to reaching agreement with them as to what amendments of the law are required to secure that their powers to grant travel concessions under the 1955 Act are not eroded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 116.]
We shall be writing to the local authority associations.

Sir K. Thompson: Does this mean that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will ask local authority associations for their views, or ask those local authorities which are concerned in this matter for their views? There is a difference.

Mr. Galbraith: What he will do is to use the local authority associations as a kind of postbox, but he wants to get in touch with the authorities concerned to find out their views. When we have their views we can take the necessary steps in the next Parliament to put the matter right.
I can tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange who asked about the number of complaints which we have had on erosion, that the number is approximately 10, and not the vast number that she indicated. But it is one thing to deal with erosion, as we propose, and quite a different matter to extend this concession as hon. Members opposite want. Such an extension would create as many anomalies as it would remove. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange will listen she will see that this is a good argument, even if she does not agree with it. Before the passing of the 1955 Act by no means all local authorities were giving concessionary fares to old people. In fact, according to our information only about 30 of the approximately 90 authorities which run municipal transport undertakings were doing so. I have heard no suggestion that local authorities should be compelled to grant concessions.
But even if this large proportion—two-thirds—did decide voluntarily to give concessionary fares, there are still many

people who are not served by local authority buses at all. This is not only in the country districts. There are many towns, like Stoke-on-Trent, Norwich and even London, where the undertaking has to be run commercially, and where it cannot get help from the rates.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: The hon. Member has mentioned Stoke-on-Trent. The authority there has made great efforts to try to get this concession, but the private bus companies have been as stubborn as the Government and have refused to grant it.

Mr. Galbraith: That just shows the sort of difficulties that arise. These are kind of anomalies that exist. Even if local authorities were given powers to reimburse commercial undertakings from the rates—and this is not in the hon. Gentleman's Bill—there would still remain the worst anomaly of the lot, which is that the concession might be of no use at all to certain pensioners. This is something which hon. Members opposite seem to forget, when they talk about restoring freedom of action to local authorities. They do not take sufficient account of freedom of choice for the pensioner, and this is what really matters.
I find it very strange to hear the party opposite speaking about restoring freedom to local authorities when it has done so much to reduce their freedom. For example, it took away local authority hospitals, it took away local authority electricity generating stations, and it has been opposed throughout to the system of general grant, which gives additional discretionary powers to local authorities. So it is sheer humbug for the Labour Party now to start talking about restoring freedom to local authorities.
In fact, there is a good deal of muddled thinking about this proposition among the party opposite. If the view of the Opposition is accepted it means going back upon the 1948 National Assistance Act which, in the words of the late Mr. Bevan, made
monetary help a national responsibility and welfare a local responsibility.
Now, whatever travelling is, it is not welfare. It is a normal activity of civil life. It is not something like home nurses or home helps which are extensions of


the Health Service designed to deal with the infirmities of old age and which are clearly welfare. Transport comes into the category of consumer goods, not social services. If there is to be any extension of travelling concessions for the old—

Miss Jennie Lee: Is not the Minister aware that every doctor, every psychologist, will say that many lonely old people suffer badly because they cannot afford bus fares and that such a concession as this would bring them out to play their part in the life of our times in circumstances in which they do not do so now?

Mr. Galbraith: It may well be that many old people would like to travel, but many other old people would like to do other things. We feel that the fair way to deal with this is to see that they have adequate pensions and not to give concessions. If there is to be a general extension of travel concessions for the old, just because they are old, where is it to stop? Should not we, perhaps, provide electricity at cheaper rates, or coal, or gas, because old people feel the winter weather worst, or extra clothes or cheaper televisions? This is a very slippery slope to start on. If they say that we are to pay the old in this way, in kind rather than in cash, the party opposite show how thoroughly reactionary they are because this was the principle which the Truck Acts were designed to prevent and that was over a 100 years ago.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central said that he had sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister enclosing a letter from one of his constituents who favoured the provision of concessionary fares. We must recognise that there is no unanimity among old-age pensioners in this matter.

Mr. L. M. Lever: rose—

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Fenner


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Alldritt, W. H.
Blyton, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Boston, T. G.
Callaghan, James


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Carmichael, Neil


Barnett, Guy
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowles, Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Beaney, Alan
Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Crosland, Anthony


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam

Mr. Galbraith: No, I cannot give way.
Following the interchange which I had with the hon. Gentleman at Question Time, to which he has referred, I also received a letter from an old-age pensioner who also comes from Newcastle. The letter states:
I entirely agree with you and please don't give way. A little extra money is far better than cheap fares"—

Mr. L. M. Lever: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Galbraith: She did not want to get paid in kind, she wanted cash. Then she added this, and it is very interesting
I only hope that as a Conservative you are returned, because God help us if Labour is.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite fail to appreciate the spirit of independence and the desire to choose for oneself which exists among old-age pensioners. That is what they forget. It is quite clear that we are deeply divided on this issue of freedom of choice. Accordingly, I ask the House to rebut the Opposition's ill-conceived Motion which will not remove anomalies and which will degrade the status of the old by making them accept recoupings of charity in kind.
On the contrary, I ask the House to support the Government Amendment which pledges the Government to prevent erosion and, by implication, to continue to promote still further the standards of the old so that they have freedom to buy more and more of what they want for themselves.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Aves 191, Noes 230.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, H.


Deer, George
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lover, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Donnelly Desmond
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lubbock, Eric
Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, N.
Short, Edward


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Silkin, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Finch, Harold
Mackenzie, Gregor
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
McLeavey, Frank
Small, William


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Snow, Julian


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mapp, George
Steele, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Stonehouse, John


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Stones, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward
Taverne, D.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Monslow, Walter
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Thompson Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Frederick
Thornton, Ernest


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver, G. H.
Wade, Donald


Hilton, A. V.
O'Malley, B. K.
Wainwright, Edwin


Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor


Holt, Arthur
Owen, Will
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Whitlock, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wigg, George


Hughes Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Ponty pridd)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.
Woof, Robert


Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Grey.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Buck, Antony
Drayson, G. B.


Allason, James
Bullard, Denys
Duncan, Sir James


Anderson, D. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Eden, Sir John


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon
Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Chataway, Christopher
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Balniel, Lord
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barter, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Cleaver, Leonard
Fell, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Berkeley, Humphry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Foster, Sir John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cordle, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidgood, John C.
Corfield, F. V.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Gammans, Lady


Bingham, R. M.
Coulson, Michael
Gibson-Watt, David


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Black, Sir Cyrll
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Curran, Charles
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Box, Donald
Currie, G. B. H.
Goodhart, Philip


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Bernard
Dance, James
Gough, Frederick


Brewis, John
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.







Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hastings, Stephen
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Speir, Rupert


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hendry, Forbes
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Stodart, J. A.


Hiley, Joseph
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, Ray
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Talbot, John E.


Hocking, Philip N.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hornby, R. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turner, Colin


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Page, John (Harrow, We (Harrow, West)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Partridge, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Peel, John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peyton, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Kershaw, Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wall, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Webster, David


Kitson, Timothy
Pitman, Sir James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Dame Edith
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Wise, A. R.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Woodnutt, Mark


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Woollam, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)




Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the action announced by Her Majesty's Government to secure that the powers of local authorities to grant travel concessions under the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 are not eroded.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Bill, the Refreshment Houses Bill and the Hairdressers (Registration) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — THAMES CONSERVANCY

10.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in London Excluded Area) Order 1964, dated 15th July, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Order, we discuss the other Order, Mr. Speaker.
That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) Order 1964, dated 15th July, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
The purpose of the second Order is, first, to confer on the Thames Conservancy the new water resources functions which are to be discharged elsewhere in the country under the 1963 Act by the river authorities and, secondly, to adapt the constitution of the Conservancy in conformity with those functions, broadly speaking, on the same line as the constitutions of the river authorities. At the same time, it is necessary to amend certain private or local Acts which, to date, have governed the Thames Conservancy in order to ensure consistency with the terms of the Order and of the Act.
The first Order—the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in London Excluded Area) Order-extends the conservation powers of the Thames Conservancy to the excluded London area in relation to the control of underground abstractions. The one Order, therefore, can stand on its own, so to speak, whilst the other is dependent upon it.
The general effect of the second Order on the constitution of the Conservancy, which is the matter that has given rise to the most interest, is to make it analogous with that of a river authority, plus additional navigational functions. My right hon. Friends have thought it right, in fixing the constitution, to have regard to the provisions of the Act with regard to river authorities.
Hon. Members may have some specific questions on the actual constitution, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to two points. The first is that there will be a navigation member, or

what used to be a navigation member, representing the amenities, who will now be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not, as hitherto, by the Minister of Transport. The function of that member will be to represent the recreational interests in the Thames, and I want to make it quite clear that, in appointing that member, my right hon. Friend undertakes to continue the same consultations as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hitherto had when appointing that member, but that, in particular, he will consult fishery interests.
I should add that since the Order was made, my right hon. Friends have given further consideration to the arguments advanced by the Greater London Council. Because the Excluded Area Order vests in the new conservators control of the underground abstraction, and this abstraction, in certain circumstances, can affect the flow of schemes in respect of which the G.L.C., and not the Conservancy, is the prevention-of-pollution authority, my right hon. Friends have concluded that it will be right to add one more member from the G.L.C.
I would ask the indulgence of the House in the sense that there is some urgency from the point of view of the Conservancy to have this Order passed, because unlike the river authorities it is an existing body. Its financial year begins on 1st January and it is necessary for it to make its estimates and precepts in October to December.
As the Order affects its financial position it is necessary, or highly desirable, that the Order should not be delayed. It is, therefore, the intention to have an amending Order towards the second appointed day. I am sure that the House will appreciate that there is no particular hurry because the new conservancy powers will not start to affect the Conservancy until the second appointed day. I apologise to the House, but this seems to us to be the sensible way to do it. The second amending Order will be simple and will not take up much of the time of the House.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: These are important Orders and I think that the House should spend a short time in considering them. There are a number of questions which I should


like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary on both Orders. The House will appreciate that the situation in relation to the conservation of water in London and in the Thames and Lea areas is very complicated. It is a matter for some regret that the House has not been given more time to consider the Orders. Thames water is of vital importance to London's water supply, and we have been asked to deal with the Orders at very short notice at the fag-end of a Parliament. I understood that we were to have had the Orders way back in February or March. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can say why we have had to wait such a long time for them.
The first Order relates to the London Excluded Area which, in fact, is the Greater London Area. The effect of the Order is very limited when one considers the range of functions to be vested in river authorities under the Water Resources Act, 1963. This Order merely brings the control of abstractions from underground sources in the London Excluded Area within the powers of the Thames Conservancy. The control of underground abstraction is now exercised by the Minister under Section 14 of the Water Act, 1945, and this power will now be transferred from the Minister to the Thames Conservancy.
The House should know that the Order does not mention all the other powers which will shortly be given to river authorities. This in effect is the only new power granted to the river authorities by the 1963 Act which is given to the River Thames Conservancy. There is to be co-ordination and uniformity for the rest of the country but not in London. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said in Committee on the Water Resources Bill as it then was:
It is intended that an Order shall be made under the Clause, and under Clause 126 (5, b) it will have to be by way of affirmative Resolution. At the moment the Water Resources Board is not in a position to cover the Thames and Lea areas, but the Board can advise the Minister on any matter that he puts to it, so that he could refer a Thames or Lea matter to the Board. But clearly, when an order is made under the Clause, the areas covered by the Thames and Lee Conservancies will be brought within the purview of the Minister, the Bill and the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 25th June, 1963; c. 723–4.]

Now comes the question: is this as far as the Minister proposes to go? The other powers are now exercised by other bodies, by the Port of London Authority, and so on. Is the Minister satisfied with things as they are or has he further proposals which may be announced later? The House should be told this evening exactly what he has in mind for the future. Is the Thames Conservancy to be limited to this single power, or is there to be a further development at some stage when the Thames Conservancy will be given the powers exercised by all the other river boards in the country?
This is one of the difficulties confronting the House in considering this Order which deals with only one narrow aspect of the problem. When the Water Resources Bill was going through the House, we all thought that we were to have uniformity throughout the country, but it is now clear that this is not to be so.
What about the Lee Conservancy Board? When is the Order relating to the Lee Conservancy to be laid before the House? I understand that consultations on a draft Order are now laking place. How does the Minister propose to deal with that?
I turn now to the second Order which confers upon the Conservators of the River Thames the functions of a river authority in relation to water conservation as laid down in the 1963 Act. In other words, instead of creating a Thames river authority, the Minister is here adapting the Thames Conservancy and altering its constitution and finances. I have some comments to make about representation on the new board. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this briefly, but I should like him to comment rather more carefully upon it.
At present, the Thames Conservancy consists of 41 members of whom the majority are appointed by county councils and district councils. Of the remainder, six representatives are appointed by the Metropolitan Water Board and one is appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government after consultation with seven statutory water undertakers drawing water from the river. The new constitution now created provides for 37 members a bare majority of whom are to be appointed by local authorities. Of the remainder, five are to be appointed


by the Minister as being qualified in respect of public water supply and three of these are to be nominated by the Metropolitan Water Board. In addition the Minister is to appoint one as having special knowledge in relation to water supply in the London excluded area.
Thus, if we leave out the London excluded area, for which special representation has now been made, the statutory water undertakers are to be reduced from 7 representatives out of 41 members to 5 representatives out of 37 members. For the Metropolitan Water Board the number of representatives is to be reduced from six to three.
Moreover, the consultation which the Minister used to have with statutory water undertakers about representation is to cease, but the Minister will consult the recreational interests before making an appointment to represent these interests. Also, the Minister of Transport is to consult interested parties about his appointments. There are to be consultations with certain interests but not with what I should regard as the most important interest of all, namely, the water undertakers.
Is it not strange that the representation of the water undertakers and of the Metropolitan Water Board is to be substantially reduced at a time when Thames Conservancy is to assume new functions—new functions which will have a much greater importance for public water supply. It seems wrong, too, that the representatives of public water supply interests are to be reduced at a time when the Thames is growing rapidly in importance from the point of view of water supply.
I was glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that accommodation had been achieved with the London County Council and that the Greater London Council will have one representative on the new Board, but I feel that the water undertakers in this area have been shabbily treated. In considering this point we should have regard to what was said in the study produced by the hon. Member's Department, the South-East Study, about the importance of water supply in the Greater London area.
May I turn for the moment to the financial side? At present, the Metropolitan Water Board contributes about

£280,000 per annum to Thames Conservancy. In all, the contributions from water undertakers in the area amount to £330,000 per annum. The financial details of this Order are very complicated and it is not quite clear what will happen when a charging scheme is introduced by Thames Conservancy. It will be the duty of Thames Conservancy under the Act and the Order to send a charging scheme to the Ministry for approval. What will happen? The statutory water undertakers will continue to contribute well over £250,000 annually to Thames Conservancy, and this is the question: will this sum be considered to be their payment for water abstracted or must they pay in addition for every gallon of water abstracted when the charging scheme is introduced?
This is the most obscure point in this Order and the most important question which the Minister has to answer. After the Order comes into operation, will the undertakers have to make a double payment—the payment which they make now of about £330,000 per annum, plus any charging fees which may arise under the charging scheme? There seems to be a good reason why the financial provisions covering a river authority should also be applied to Thames Conservancy. I do not think that it would be a good thing if river authorities worked to one set of financial rules and the Thames Conservancy worked to another set of rules.
There is also the question of fishery representation, and I mention this as a concluding point. The Parliamentary Secretary did not mention it, but there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about it. The London Anglers' Association and other bodies feel strongly that the River Thames and the River Lea are of great value.

Mr. Corfield: I made it clear that in the appointment of the recreational member the consultations would include the representatives of the fishery or angling interests.

Mr. Hughes: The fact remains that although there will be consultations there is no certainty that out of those consultations will emerge a fishery representative on the new board. This is


what the fishery representatives are concerned about.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Is there not already a fishery representative on the Lea Catchment Board?

Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Member is right. There is at the moment. Unfortunately, the House is not in a position to consider the Order relating to the River Lea at the moment, a point which I have made. It is unfortunate that we are not in a position

to consider the Lea Order as well as the Thames Order. I understand that there have been discussions between the Ministry and the fishery interests. We had lengthy debates in Committee on fishery representation on river authorities in the remainder of the country, but when it comes to the Thames the fishery interests are left high and dry.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us, when he replies, why these interests are being excluded. These are some of the more important matters upon which the House should be enlightened before we pass the Orders.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: There is an important omission from the Order about which I am not at all happy. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, has referred to it in a general way. I refer to the fact that, for the first time, representatives from the joint riparian committees on the Thames Conservancy are excluded.
Ever since 1908—and, possibly, before that, for all I know—the riverside towns have had four representatives on the Thames Conservancy, two on behalf of the authorities between Abingdon and Walton-on-Thames and two others on behalf of the authorities below Walton-on-Thames. The fact that these are now excluded for the first time has, understandably, aroused strong local feeling. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Minister received a deputation on behalf of the riverside towns early this month, but, if my information is correct, the argument then put forward fell on deaf ears.
I must put this point to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The representatives of the riverside towns on the Thames Conservancy—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) will agree with this—performed a very useful function. They were an essential link between the towns and the Conservancy. They helped to anticipate, to deal with, and to smooth out all sorts of problems which arose. Moreover, their functions were mutually beneficial both to the towns in question and to the Conservancy. Both interests gained by that representation. In addition, a point which the House should not overlook is that almost without exception, the representatives so appointed were men of lifelong interest and experience of the river.
Hitherto, Parliament has always regarded and treated the Thames Conservancy as different from other river boards, for obvious reasons, and in some respects the Order continues to do this. I am, however, very unhappy about the exclusion of representatives from the riverside towns, and I ask my hon. Friend to explain fully the attitude of the Government to this point.
I do not understand what interpretation can be put upon paragraph (8) of Article

9 of the Order in relation to the exclusion of any representatives from the riverside towns. It states:
In the appointment of Conservators under paragraph 1 … the council or councils concerned shall, so far as may be practicable, select persons appearing to them to have a practical knowledge of the matters to which the functions of the Conservators will relate; and where two or more persons are to be appointed by the council of a county, the council shall … select persons each of whom has local associations with a different county district or group of county districts, having regard to the appropriate penny rate product …
How on earth does that apply to the lack of representation of non-county boroughs like Maidenhead, in my constituency, with a population of well over 30,000, for whom the whole of the problems of the River Thames are vitally important? Are they not to have any representatives at all or any say in who represents their area? This is a very important point, and I ask my hon. Friend to pay attention to it when he replies.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has frequently said that in local government "local" is the operative word. I agree. But I am bound to tell him that I see very little evidence of that interpretation in the Order.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: It is in many ways surprising, when one comes to consider the Orders, how everybody takes water entirely for granted, particularly the supply coming out of their taps, until it does not come. One would hardly realise that these two Orders must be affecting the water supply of between 17 million and 18 million people in the area round the Thameside. It is for that reason that I agree particularly with the statement made by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) about the importance of the two Orders and the need to ensure that we understand them fully.
First, I turn to the Thames Catchment Area Order and the membership of the new Conservancy. I thank my hon. Friend for listening to the approaches made to him and my right hon. Friend about the representation of Oxford and Reading. I see the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), the Joint


Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, sitting on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure he would agree that it would have been an impossible position for the two towns to have shared one representative. I thank my hon. Friend most sincerely.
Having said that, I would also back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) said about the riverside towns. When one considers the very small majority that the local authorities have in this Conservancy and the admirable flexibility that the Minister has shown in bringing in another member from the Greater London Authority, it seems to me that it would not have been upsetting the balance to have allowed there to be a representative of the riverside towns themselves.
Turning specifically to the Order, and to paragraph 9(2) of Part III, there is reference to the appointment of those members for the water authorities. I am somewhat concerned about this. I think it is now widely known that of the five outside the one appointed for the Greater London Area, originally it was intended that there should be two representatives from the Metropolitan Water Board and three from the other authorities outside that Board. This has been reversed. I think this is an incorrect step. There are these seven other authorities with very different and varying interests, and I should have thought that we ought to have seen more than two representatives from them. I am also concerned about the fact that whereas the Metropolitan Water Board representatives are appointed by the nomination of the Board, the Minister himself has kept the power to appoint the two representatives from the other authorities.
I know that there would have been some slight disagreement on selecting the two future representatives out of the seven previous representatives but the Minister, in this Order, has recognised the difficulty in another instance, for it is laid down that, where there is disagreement in that case, the powers may be exercised by the Minister himself. It would have been useful had he extended that provision to cover the case of the appointment of two repre-

sentatives by the non-Metropolitan water authorities. He could have asked them to get together to choose representatives and then, if they had failed to agree, made the appointments himself.
Let us be under no misapprehension. I have nothing but praise for the work of the Thames Conservancy. We are all grateful for it. There is no doubt, however, that certain of the water undertakers and independent water boards are concerned about the extra powers that are suddenly being given to the Thames Conservancy in responsibility for the supply of water.
The specific reason for this is that, outside the Metropolitan Water Board, one finds that the majority of other water boards are not themselves independently relying only on the Thames for their supplies. They are going to borings and raising the water themselves. There is no doubt that the Thames Conservators have no good experience of such operations and yet they are to be given a responsibility for the supply of water from these sources.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will assure me that he will see that the Thames Conservators pay particular regard to these slightly different interests and ensure that there is no undue interference in the proper and correct operations of these other water boards which, like the Thames Conservancy, have done a most excellent job in expanding the amount of water they have been able to produce for their specific needs.
What is the total liability that local authorities can come up against under this Order? As I see it, it appears, according to the Explanatory Note, that the total liability is to be a maximum of the precept of a 4d. rate. Is that so? It would allay a lot of doubt and suspicion if this could be made clear.
In the working of the new Thames Conservancy there must be the maximum co-operation between the up-river boards—those which are not Metropolitan—and the Conservancy in the use and supply of water. There is a great difference between those using the Thames as water supply and those which are not. This is a specific worry which we must ensure is done away with if


the new concept is to work. I hope that it does work and work efficiently.

10.45 p.m.

Mr John M. Temple: Throughout the passage of the Water Resources Act I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of many of the fishery interests, including the National Federation of Anglers, the Salmon and Trout Association and the Anglers' Cooperative Society. It was plain at that time that one of the most important functions of the new river authorities would be administration of the law with regard to fisheries.
I am aware that the Thames Conservancy does not have to operate the Acts concerning salmon and fresh water fisheries. On the other hand, there was a recommendation by the Bledisloe Committee that the salmon and fresh water fisheries Acts should come within the purview of the Thames Conservancy. In the not too distant future, when Parliament gets round to implementing the recommendations of the Bledisloe Committee, no doubt the fishery laws will be administered by the Conservancy.
There is no question that at present fishing in all its aspects is becoming more and more important. I would say that today it is the national sport which has more people individually following it than any other field sport. The Thames basin and all the river's tributaries are immensely popular as places where people can fish, and I must admit that it was a tremendous shock and surprise to me when I found that a river authority, the Thames Conservancy, was not as one in this appointment of a special representative or representatives to look after fishing interests. I was rather surprised when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the river authorities were more or less the same in constitution as the Thames Conservancy. I think that there is a considerable difference and I should like my hon. Friend to explain to the House exactly what is the difference between a conservancy and a river authority. I think that the conservators have the unique privilege of wearing blazers and yachting: caps but that in all other respects they are the same as members of a river authority!
I appreciated what my hon. Friend said about the appointee of my right hon.

Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That particular appointee will apparently have the responsibilities of looking after fishing as well as certain transport matters on the Thames. Exceptional problems will be facing that appointee for he will have the difficult task of looking after at one and the same time the vessels travelling on the surface of the Thames, a subject which needs a specialised knowledge, and also the fish travelling within the waters of the river and its tributaries, which also needs a special knowledge. It is therefore disappointing that the fishing interests are not to have the normal representation which they have on all other river authorities in England and Wales.
I have been thinking about this matter at length and I have had the opportunity of discussing it with my right bon Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) outside the House. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, here tonight. I know of his interest in field sports, particularly fishing, and I can say that I have gained a great deal of solace because I have heard from him that not only is he personally interested in fishing, but that so are a large number of his conservators. I believe that we can take it that this is most reassuring news that the conservators, while not being definitely charged with the functions of looking after fisheries in the Thames, have a great interest in them. It may be possible for my right hon. Friend to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to tell us a little more about his proposals and those of the conservators for fishing in the River Thames.
When the principal Act, the Water Resources Act, was going through Parliament, an erstwhile Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now my noble Friend Lord Inglewood, was wise enough to ask a question about the Section under which this Order has been made. My hon. Friend asked whether the Thames Conservancy would in effect be the same thing as a river authority, and at column 723 on 25th June, 1963, my right hon. Friend said without equivocation "Yes". Sitting in my place, after a good many sittings of the Standing Committee, I was in no doubt but


that the constitution of the Thames Conservancy would be very much akin to the constitution of a river authority.
On 22nd July I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture what were the numbers of members qualified in respect of fisheries that he expected to appoint to the various river authorities in England and Wales. During the proceedings on the Water Resources Bill my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had said that it would be very unusual to appoint a single appointee. My hon. Friend has been proved right in the event, as there are only two river authorities in England and Wales where there is a single appointee appointed in respect of fishing. In all the other river authorities we have two, three, or four members specially appointed because of their unique knowledge with regard to fisheries.
When we come to what is in fact the most important river, and very much the largest river basin in England and Wales, we find that there is no specific appointee of the Ministry of Agriculture, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whom I am glad to see present, is a little disappointed that his Minister has not got direct representation in respect of fisheries on the Thames Conservancy. I think that in this instance we have to accept the position as it is, and hope that if there is any re-drawing of boundaries, as there may well be, a different state of affairs will pertain.
The fishery interests have asked me to ask one question with regard to the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. It is a very serious question, which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to answer. As the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) said, consultations are going on with respect to this Order. It may be that the Order which we are discussing will create a precedent, because there is no direct fishery representation. I think that it would be wrong if we were to create a precedent, and this was quoted when the time came to settle the constitution of the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. As I said, I think that we have to accept the position in respect of the Thames, but I must admit

that it is a little bit of a disappointment for the fishery interests that they have not got their direct representation.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I, too, express some disappointment with the Order in respect of the Thames catchment area, but I do not do so from the narrow point of view of a constituency interest, or borough interest, although I have a very close personal interest in the Thames, first, because my constituency has nine miles of the river running through it, and secondly, because I happen to live on one of the tributaries of the Thames, the River Lodden. I also express an interest as President of the River Thames Society, which is an amenity body which takes a great interest in the river from the Cotswolds to Southend.
The point that I want to make, and which I hope my hon. Friend will take in, is that to millions of people who live in the Thames area, on either side of the Thames, it does not mean water supplies, or local authorities, or anything else. It means recreation and amenities. It means recreation, fishing—as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said—rowing, sailing, canoeing, motor boating, swimming, and the humble sport of paddling.
One of my friends told me that last weekend that the Thames between Chertsey and Shepperton was like Blackpool on August Bank Holiday, it was so full of people taking part in all these sports. After all, we want to encourage them—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) will agree—because we do not want people to spend time motoring to the seaside or cluttering up the roads. How much better to spend their weekends and holidays on the Thames, near at hand.
With that thought in mind, how does this Order match up to the needs of this interest in recreation. How does the constitution of the Thames Conservancy—which we all respect—match up to those needs? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was good enough, in answer to a Question of mine on 20th July, to set out the exact constitution of the Thames Conservancy, as proposed. I was interested to see that local authorities would have no fewer than 19 members


out of 37. Hertfordshire, which is not on the Thames at all, will have 3 members. Persons qualified in land drainage will have 3 members, and those qualified in agriculture, 2 members. Those qualified in respect of industry will have 3 members. The Metropolitan Water Board, which draws out 265 million gallons of water a day and supplies 70 per cent. of London's water, will quite properly have 3 members, and it might well have more; the users of the Thames for barge traffic—and as Member for Twickenham I have not seen many barges in the last few years—will have two members, who will also represent boat builders or boat letters and owners of pleasure boats privately used. Then, persons appointed after consultation with users of the Thames for recreation are to have one representative.
I suggest that it is not enough to have only one representative for recreation. Not only does he have to represent fishing, but such recreations as canoeing, sailing and swimming. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester referred to the National Federation of Anglers. Today I received a humble petition from the London Anglers Association, whose president is Sir Harold Morris, Q.C. Mr. Porter is chairman, Mr. Curtis is chairman of the Fisheries Committee, Mr. French and Mr. Newton, trustees, Mr. Wilson, treasurer and Mr. Davison, secretary. They say that
Fisheries Functions and Fishery Representation have been ignored in the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in the Thames Catchment Area) Order 1964.
They pray
that Fishery Functions and Fishery Representation should be included in the Order as provided for in the Water Resources Act 1963, because they are an integral part of all River Authorities duties and Fisheries cannot be divided from Pollution Prevention work of such Authorities. In the view of your Petitioners there is no cogent reason for leaving out Fishery Functions and Fishery Representation and it is most essential for the well-being of the River Thames and its tributaries that the Fisheries in the Catchment Area should now be afforded proper protection, because this is the largest river in the country and urgently requires such protection.
That puts better than I can the case for the London anglers.
The River Thames has been treated differently from all other river authorities. The Essex River Board has two repre-

sentatives of fishing interests. As has been said, the Bledisloe Report recommends that the powers of the river authority for the Thames should include fishing. Generally speaking, the Thames really belongs to the general public who live on either side of it, whether in Oxford, Reading, Chertsey, Twickenham, Teddington, or any of the other towns bordering on it. People who live on either side of this great river are fundamentally interested in recreation and amenity and we should have greater representation of these interests on the Thames Conservancy.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government wishes to ask a body well suited to recommend a new member, he could not do better than to ask the River Thames Society. I am greatly disappointed that this Order has left out fishery interests and has not provided for adequate representation of recreational interests. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he will bring an amending Order before the House to add further representation to the Thames Conservancy to look after recreation and fishery interests.

11.1 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: I am glad, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to catch your eye and to be able to answer one or two points raised by my hon. Friends. I have to declare a special interest in the Order as the present Chairman of the Thames Conservancy. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that the Thames conservators are very well aware of their responsibility for a great national pleasure ground, one of the greatest in the country. On our river hundreds of thousands of people enjoy themselves and I hope that they may long be able to do so.
Our primary concern is that the river shall be kept in the best possible condition both as regards purity of the water and appearance so far as we have control over it. Navigation is, of course, the principal recreation on the river and for that we give special attention to the maintenance of the locks, bridges and weirs. Today there are 7,000 or 8,000 craft registered as regularly using the river.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was incorrect in saying that these recreational interests will not be represented under the proposed Order. If


he looks at paragraph 9(5) he will see that the Minister of Transport appoints two members to represent navigation and these are to be appointed after consultation
with such persons or bodies representative of persons concerned with the navigation of the Thames for profit or pleasure as he considers appropriate.
As there is hardly any freight traffic on the river now, this virtually means that two will be representing recreational interests. The third member, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, will be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and he also will be concerned with recreational facilities. I assure the House that we take all the trouble humanly possible over this matter.
I spent last weekend inspecting the lock gardens. It was the annual inspection which takes several days. We have a system of presentation of cups and prizes awarded to encourage lock-keepers to keep their gardens beautiful and so to add to the amenities of the river. We are mechanising the locks in order to ease the burden of the lock-keepers and to make the passage of craft through the locks quicker. It is our constant endeavour to meet the needs of river users, and lock-keepers and navigation inspectors are concerned to help the river users. It is sometimes said that bathing does not take place in the river, but during the week-end before last I saw thousands of young and old bathing in the river and obviously much enjoying it.
We have been taken to task on the question of fisheries. It is true that the Thames Conservancy does not incorporate a fishery board as do other river authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked what was the difference between the Thames Conservancy and any other river authority, except that the conservators wear blazers and white yachting caps. I suppose that anyone can wear a blazer and a white yachting cap if he chooses, but the system of the Thames Conservancy has been in existence for over 100 years, and in its present form for over 60 years. The Conservancy, therefore, has a very long experience and a history of some dis-

tinction. It looks after a river that is unique in what it does for the country's recreational life. and in the water supply it brings down to London, so it probably does have features that distinguish it from other river authorities.
Here, I would say something that may give a little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery). During these years we have to some extent performed the function that the new Water Resources Act puts on the river authorities; that is to say, we have been responsible to water undertakings—particularly the Metropolitan Water Board—for supplies of water to them, and have been paid accordingly. The result is that we have a very well developed prevention of pollution system which has been going on now for some 50 or 60 years.
This is a very difficult job. Inevitably, with the growth of the comforts of life, the effluents discharged into the river are ever larger and more difficult to dispose of. I would imagine that something of the order of 120 million gallons a day of effluents are discharged into the Thames from some 10,000 different points. It is a very formidable job to check all these continually and bring them to reasonable standard, but I believe that we have this matter under good control. We are continually trying to improve the standard of the effluent, and I hope that we shall continue to do so. There is no doubt that in the last 20 years since the end of the war we have made a very substantial improvement in the quality of the water. and we shall certainly continue to strive after that.
The position of fisheries on the Thames is that nearly all the fisheries on the tributaries are in private ownership and reserved—quite good fly fishing—but the main river from Teddington to Lechlade is nearly all coarse fishing—there are some large Thames trout in the upper reaches. The Thames from Teddington to Staines is completely public on both banks, so that anybody can fish there without let or hindrance in any shape or form. Above Staines people can fish on most of the bank, but some of the riparian owners now are taking control of their banks, and anybody wishing to fish there will have to make arrangements with them.
We have taken the view as a Conservancy that the coarse fish in the river are very plentiful because the water is reasonably clean and because the system of weirs and locks keeps the water always at a good depth so that fish life breeds in large numbers. When I was going up the river on this lock inspection, I saw what I believe were literally thousands of fishermen on both banks all the way up from Teddington to Lechlade, all obviously enjoying themselves. They come from London and the Home Counties, from the Midlands and elsewhere.
We take the view that there would be no advantage to the fishing public to our establishing ourselves as a fishery board and requiring rod licences, with people paying, perhaps, 5s. or 10s., a year for a licence, and with water bailiffs to turn away those without licences. It is very nice to see the many youngsters fishing on the river. I think that it is rather wonderful that there is something that people can do for fun now, and that it does not cost anything. They can please themselves where they fish on the Thames and no one will say them nay. It is an admirable state of affairs.
I am not unaware of the criticism from various quarters that we should do more about the fishery in the Thames in order to make sure that the coarse fishing is as good as I believe it to be. I should say that we have a system of byelaws, enforced by voluntary river representatives, which is, we think, quite adequate, and which deals with the usual matters of protection for size of fish taken out, close seasons, and so on. But to ensure that the fishery is adequate I have asked our officers to set in hand a survey of the whole area so that we may see whether the fishery is quite as good as it should be and, if it is not, whether there is anything that we should do to ensure that it is.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the form in which these Orders have come forward. Naturally I am sad to see the effect of some of the features in the constitution whereby some old friends may be in danger of losing their seats, but this is inevitable when big changes come along. I know how much a seat on the Thames Conservancy is prized. But

the form of the Order in preserving the Thames Conservancy as such, which has been of great value in our national life. is warmly welcomed. The form of the financial structure which adds new financial powers is also welcomed. It at last puts us on a sound financial basis. The extension of our activities to cover the underground water of London is something which we do not exactly welcome, because we think that it will be a formidable task, but we accept the compliment that the Minister thinks that we are capable of performing it and we shall do our best to make a good job of it.
The Thames has an enormous function to perform in supplying the needs of the Thames Valley and London, not only from the Thames catchment area, from the river itself and from its tributaries and from underground sources, but also in future without doubt in bringing water from the plentiful supplies of the West either from rivers or from Wales to run down the channels of the Thames to supply the thirsty, dense populations round London both in South Essex and North Kent, as the South-East Study has forecast.
We are well advanced with our plans for the first supplementation of the natural flow of the Thames. I hope that we shall be able to come forward next year with our initial proposal to supplement the flow from underground sources back in the chalk hills of the west part of the country by up to 200 million gallons a day and thus make sure that we shall not be short for the next 10 or 20 years. Thereafter we shall go ahead with more massive schemes to bring additional water from the catchment area. I hope that the House will feel that the record of the Thames Conservancy is such that the Orders should be passed to give us additional powers and responsibilities and that these functions will be in safe hands to be carried out for the national good.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: It may help the House if I refer to the basic principles on which we have endeavoured to establish the river authorities and accordingly by which we have been guided in altering the constitution of the Thames Conservancy.
The whole object of the exercise was to produce an executive body, and not a collection of delegates, provided on the one hand with the skills and experience which were necessary for these new functions and on the other hand with a bare majority of local authority representatives because they are representatives of the bodies on which precepts are made. On the good old maxim of "No taxation without representation", this seems to me to be a sound approach. But, of course, this inevitably means that, unless one is to have an inordinately large body, some people who have hitherto had seats will lose them to make way for the new skills and experience which are required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) criticised us because we had not put more people on the board. I remind him that, as a result of the new powers and duties, we have brought in representatives from agriculture who were not there before and representatives from industry who were not there before. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) pointed out, there are now, under the navigation head, three members for amenity. The barge traffic produces something under ¼d. in the £ of the total income of the Conservancy, and it was for that reason that we decided that it was no longer necessary to have somebody specifically representing the commercial use of the river for navigation. Consequently, the navigation members will be mainly, or almost entirely, representative of the pleasure craft, and I suggest that that would be adequately covered by the word "recreation".
This, I suggest, takes account of the problems which have been facing my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) and for Twickenham, all of whom have pressed for more representatives, particularly from the riparian authorities. If one were to accept that argument, bearing in mind that the structure of the Conservancy will be a balanced one between the appointed members and the local authority members, one would increase the size enormously. I have not made any calculations for this particular exercise, but,

the other day, when we were discussing a similar river authority, it was clear that slight amendment would add anything up to 20 to 30 people to the board because it would mean that one would have to recalculate the sum on which the local authority representation was based.
What we do, having selected the skills and so on which are requisite on the board and the people to be appointed by the Minister, is to take the total number of local authority representatives, compare that with the total product of the appropriate 1d. rate, dividing it among the constituent authorities, county boroughs, on the one hand, and county councils, on the other, on the basis of the product of the appropriate 1d. rate in each of the particular areas.
That is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. For instance, in a situation in which, on this basis, Berkshire works out at having just under two members, clearly, one gives it two, and if it so happened that half the rateable value represented by Berkshire were represented by Maidenhead, then the paragraph to which my hon. Friend referred would require Berkshire to select one of its members from Maidenhead. That is the purpose of the weighting in relation to the product of the 1d. rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham should remember, when he is pressing for more and more representation of the people who live by the Thames, that these new functions will have to be exercised in relation to the whole of the Thames basin and, if he were to have that sort of representation for Twickenham, we should have a very large body indeed and, I suggest, a quite ineffective one in relation to its executive functions.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I was not pressing for a recreational member for Twickenham, another for Shepperton, another for Staines, and so on. I was merely pressing for one or, perhaps, two more recreational members additional to the 37 we already have. It would be nothing very extensive.

Mr. Temple: Will my hon. Friend make clear that the appointees of the Minister of Transport to whom he refers


as recreational appointees are not recreational appointees at all? They are representatives
concerned with … navigation … for profit or pleasure".
There is nothing about recreation in that context.

Mr. Corfield: I am sorry, but I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple). Boating for pleasure is a recreation by any ordinary dictionary definition.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. But what he forgets is that if we put on even two more amenity members we must put on two more local authority members, because that is how it works, and that gives a total of 41. If we met my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, with more representatives for public water supply, that would mean two more for water supply and two more for local authorities—four more, again. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that we must keep the total number within reasonable bounds if we are to have an executive body.
The Thames Conservancy has never been a fishery authority, and the powers of the Act are such that they enable us to confer upon the Conservancy the conservation functions of the Act but no other functions which the Conservancy does not already have. It leaves open the whole question whether at some future date, following consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the Thames Conservancy should or should not be a fishery authority, too. It certainly closes no doors.
I cannot answer questions about the Lee Conservancy, which is a matter not before us. I can assure the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) that we are pressing on with that matter, but there is not the urgency about the Lee Order such as arises from the financial structure involved in the Thames Order. I am sure that he realises that because of the necessity for establishing 26 river authorities in addition to the Conservancy constitutional alterations, we have had a number of Orders to consider, and this is the sole reason that we cannot produce them all at once. I apologise to him if

he feels that he has not had a full opportunity of studying the Order as long as he would like.
The hon. Member for Anglesey asked for more members for the Metropolitan Water Board and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading asked for fewer. The Metropolitan Water Board is in a unique position. It will be the only public water undertaking which has written into the Order a right to appoint. Throughout the rest of the river authority areas the people with the skills and qualifications in connection with public water supply will be appointed by my right hon. Friend to the various river authorities, but it so happens that in the past the Metropolitan Water Board has been almost the sole water undertaking which has made any substantial contribution to the Thames Conservancy, and it has always had a representation of its own. It will remain by far the largest undertaking not only in the Thames but in the country, and it has certain other claims in the sense that it is not only an extractor of water for immediate consumption in the London area but that it does a great deal of abstracting of water for transfer to areas beyond London. It seems sensible that it should be left with a specific representation. But it must be a reduced representation if we are to have people qualified in the other and somewhat different problems which are faced by other water undertakers in the catchment.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading that there is no intention, and I do not think there is any possibility, that these new powers conferred on the Thames Conservancy will in any way undermine the powers of water undertakers. He seemed a little nervous about that. The whole purpose is to enable the Thames Conservancy to exercise the new function with which to conserve more water for the purpose of making the very heavy tasks of many of the water undertakers easier rather than more difficult.
The hon. Member for Anglesey asked me about land drainage difficulties; or rather, about the differences between the Thames Conservancy on the one hand. and the various river authorities on the other, referring in particular to the London Excluded Area. The


answer is that only limited functions apply to this area, the other functions being covered by separate legislation, which is largely local in relation to London because of London's peculiarities in these matters.
For example, flood prevention is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. Prevention of pollution is a statutory function, of the Port of London Authority in the tidal part of the river, while the Greater London Council is left with responsibility for the tributaries which flow into the Thames from the excluded area, although the Authority has a certain supervisory power in this. The only reason why this selective function is conferred on the Conservancy is that the other functions are carried out by the other authorities.
I hope that I have been able to answer all the questions which have been put to me, and I would sum up by saying that the whole object of the exercise is to build on an authority which has served us very well in the past something which will enable it to carry out conservation functions while, at the same time, establishing a body which will serve the people who pay. without making it too big.
I think that we have allocated the various functions well. I see that the hon. Member for Anglesey is rising in his place to say, I suspect, that I have not answered the question about the Metropolitan Water Board's payments. The payments to date represent payment for services in the past, and work out at about three-farthings per thousand gallons. In the future, payment will be related to any services carried out by the Conservancy from which the Metropolitan Water Board benefits, but there will be no alteration in the contribution made in respect of works carried out in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in London Excluded Area) Order 1964, dated 15th July, 1964. a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) Order, 1964, dated 15th July,

1964 [copy laid before the House 16th July], approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS

11.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
These new Regulations do just what the House asked me to do when we last debated this matter, and which I then promised to do. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were then closely interested in the new provision which I proposed for the payment of a lump sum to the widow or the dependants of a policeman who dies from injury received from a murderous attack in the course of his duty.
Both sides of the House at that time urged me to go further and widen this provision so as to bring in the widows or dependants of police officers killed while trying to make an arrest, even although they were not actually the victims of an attack. I accepted that view of the House, and promised to bring forward an amending Regulation on those lines before the Recess and in the lifetime of this Parliament. I explained that I could do this only if I received the co-operation and help of all concerned, because I cannot lay any new regulation before Parliament without first bringing it before a meeting of the Police Council and consulting that body.
I am glad to say that I have received that co-operation in full. Discussions with representatives of the Police Federation and consultation with the Police Council for England and Wales and the Police Council for Scotland have taken place in a friendly and constructive manner. The draft Regulations before us tonight are the agreed result of those discussions.
Regulation 1 not only provides that where a policeman dies as the result of an attack his widow will be entitled to a gratuity equal to twice the annual maximum pay of a constable, in addition to the special rate of pension which the


principal Regulations already provide, but also ensures, as the House desired, that this will extend to the police widow whose husband dies as a result of an injury received in the course of trying to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape or rescue from custody. The dependent children will be provided for in both cases in the same way, if the policeman does not leave a widow.
As I have said, these draft Regulations exactly give effect to the wishes expressed by both sides of the House in our debate the other day, and they have been approved since then by both Police Councils. I only add that I remain of the view which I expressed before that what we now need is a comprehensive review of the entire police pensions system, to see whether some of the anomalies, differences and difficulties which individually come forward for discussion in the Police Council from time to time cannot by agreement be ironed out. In the forthcoming consultations on this proposal of mine, I hope that I may again have the co-operation of all concerned, as I have generously had it in the preparation of these amending Regulations that are before us tonight.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the whole House will appreciate that the Home Secretary has been able, before the end of the Session, to lay before the House these amended Regulations and that by doing so he has been able to implement the promise which he gave to the House when we debated the earlier Regulations on 9th July. As the Home Secretary has said, he has taken this course as a result of representations that were made to him during that debate, from both sides of the House. Both sides of the House can claim satisfaction at the fact that on this occasion pressure from the House of Commons has induced the Home Secretary to change his mind and do something which, at the outset, he told us that for various reasons he was quite unable to do.
It is also important to record that the speeches that were made on that occasion when we discussed the Police Regulations were a valuable indication of the very high esteem in which the

police are held by this House and were an indication of the anxiety of the House of Commons to show its desire to give the fullest possible moral support to the police throughout the country in the arduous and difficult responsibilities which they have to undertake.
I do not want to pursue unduly the fact that the Home Secretary, on 9th July, started by giving us a number of reasons why it was impossible to do what he has now agreed to do, but there is one point to which attention should be drawn. One of the reasons which the Home Secretary then advanced for not being able to do what he is now doing was that it would produce anomalies in other branches of the public service. He said, for example, that if Regulations of this kind were made, giving this benefit to the widows of policemen who lost their lives in the execution of their duty, they would be treated more favourably by the authorities who employ them than, for example, the widow of a fireman who is killed in a fire. It is natural and to be expected that now that the Home Secretary has made this very welcome decision in the case of widows of policemen who lose their lives in the execution of their duty, similar provisions should be sought in respect of the widows of firemen who may also happen to lose their lives in the execution of a public duty. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that in the review that he is contemplating—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is about to suggest that we should now discuss some other widows' provisions outside the police force. I dislike having to interrupt him, but I am bound to indicate—it is my duty to do so—that it would be out of order on the Order.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I was about to conclude by saying that I was not quite sure what the Home Secretary had in mind but I hoped that the further comprehensive review which he is contemplating with regard to pension regulations will be sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the widows not only of police but of those other officers in the public service to whom he is responsible.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has drawn attention to one of the problems which confronted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in presenting the Regulations to us previously. The Home Secretary pointed to the difficulties which might arise if he gave way in this case. I feel that it would be right for me to express my personal appreciation, and, I am sure, the appreciation of the House, of the very courteous and gracious way in which the Home Secretary withdrew the Regulations and agreed to re-present them in the form in which he has done tonight. I am sure that we and all police forces are very grateful to him.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I very sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for honouring his word and bringing these Regulations forward, and doing it so expeditiously. I am sure that it is a job well done, and I am sure that the House and the police will be grateful to him.
I think that the unanimous feeling expressed by the House this month underlines the respect that we have for our great police force and shows that we want it to know that we are entirely with it in all that it does and that so far as money can compensate for the loss of a husband—in some cases it may concern what happens to a lady—we are prepared to go to the very limit. I hope that the police will interpret it—I am sure they will—as an indication of our respect for them.
I support my right hon. Friend in the review to which he referred I am sure that his task would be easier, and so would that of a police constable, if such a review could take up the slack and deal with any potential anomalies which might occur from time to time. I hope that time may be found simultaneously with that review, if not in that review, to deal with comparable cases and matters affecting those in other public services who will no doubt feel that they should be treated similarly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a comprehensive viewpoint over this. I am not worried about precedent; I am worried that we should express our sympathy in a manner fitting for the great nation to which we belong.
I have studied the Regulation in question and am sure that it will do all we wanted and all that my right hon. Friend intends. But I have looked to the future with the mind of a lawyer, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether anywhere in the new Regulation there appears a mandate to pay the special pension for one section of those who are included under the new Order. Regulation No. 12A reiterates the provision in the 1962 Regulations. There is no harm in repeating it. That is common to our legislation. It says that any woman whose husband was mortally injured as a result of an attack and died after 5th July, 1948, is thereby entitled to the superior pension or the special pension. That was in the original Regulations, the mandate being in the words:
… a widow to whom this Regulation applies shall be entitled …
I can find no comparable words in the Regulation before us. That is my trouble. It says that the Regulation will apply as regards those attacked and dying after 5th July, 1948, and those whose death is the result of an injury received during the execution of their duty. That is all quite clear. But the only possible mandate before us tonight is in 12A (3) which says:
… a widow to whom this Regulation applies …
That I believe covers both types of widow.
The widow whose husband dies on or after 1st August 1964, is to be entitled to a gratuity as provided, and that is all right. It will come into force after 1st August. But there are also the words:
… in addition to a widow's special pension.
They will also apply to the new types of person to be brought in now—those whose husbands are killed in the execution of their duty but not necessarily by attack. This Order specifically rules out Regulation No. 8 of the Police Pensions (Amendment) No. 2 Order passed earlier this month. It seems to be at pains to state those to whom it applies. It categorically includes both types of widow, but nowhere does it say that those who are to be covered after 1st August shall be entitled also to an extra pension, apart from some vague qualifying phrase at the end of paragraph (3), which refers


back to the 1962 Regulations, adding the new departure of entitlement to a special pension of those whose husbands are killed not by attack but in the execution of their duty.
I am not sure that in future some shadow of doubt will not be cast on all this. I do not want to stop the Order going through tonight but I hope that, in the review to be undertaken, my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of wording this a little more clearly and happily in order to make certain that it is understood that we are adding another section to those who will be entitled to the special pension and two more sections to those who will get the gratuity. I hope that I have not confused the issue but if so it has been done with the very best intentions. I thank my right hon Friend again for what he has done and I am sure that he will receive the gratitude of the force.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I will acknowledge that, as far as I understand it, the Regulation which the Home Secretary has introduced fulfils the undertaking which he gave to the House, and I am grateful to him for it. Having had a long experience of trying to understand these Regulations, I beg the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) not to try. My technique now is to ask the draftsmen or the Home Office officials, "Are you satisfied that this does what the agreement provided?", and, if they say, "Yes", I let it go in the full knowledge that if there is a technical fault in the Regulations, they will introduce another, because they are honourable men and will not go back on their word.
This, of course, is a discretionary pension. It is not automatic, as in the case of the man who is killed as the result of an attack upon his person. It is discretionary in the sense that the local police authority decides whether his death is the equivalent of an attack upon his person in somewhat similar circumstances. There never was any doubt that the Home Secretary would get the co-operation of the other bodies making up the Police Council, because, as the Home Secretary well knows, for reasons which I will not go into, it was one element which served on the Police Council which was holding us up, and,

once the House of Commons had got hold of that element, the rest were willing and anxious to agree.
I am a little worried about the comprehensive review which the Home Secretary has mentioned. I do not know what the need for it is. I hope that the House will not be led astray by this. I do not know whether it is a Machiavellian device on the part of the Home Secretary to interfere with the structure of the police pension system, but I cannot imagine what is the need otherwise.
The basic structure of the system is perfectly adequate. It is fair and reasonable and, as far as I know, has aroused no dissent on either side. By "basic structure" I mean the number of years a policeman has to serve, the rate at which he qualifies for pension and the conditions in which he qualifies. As someone who has studied these matters for some years, I see absolutely no reason for a comprehensive review.
Grave suspicion is engendered by the Home Office and the Home Secretary, who has mentioned this two or three times, when this suggestion is made, because it is believed that the purpose of a comprehensive review is to tamper with the basic structure. If the Home Secretary can remove that apprehension tonight, the suggestion might be received with much better grace by other elements on the Police Council.
So far as I know, only what might be called fringe benefits are causing difficulty, not the basic structure itself. There are two or three little irritations in the matter of widows' pensions, who shall secure them and when and what shall be done about two types of fringe groups, which are not at all related to the basic structure of the system itself. If that is what the Home Secretary has in mind and if he says that he would like a comprehensive review of the fringe benefits, then there might be some progress.
But if he has in mind some idea of looking at the whose structure of the police pension system, he knows, almost without my telling him, that this will be met with very great resistance. It is up to him to tell us why he wants this review and to say what is in the back of his mind before we start on a discussion of this sort. My studies convince me that there is a need only for adjustments in certain minor fringe proposals.
These adjustments hardly need a comprehensive review. They have been brought up time after time and have been dredged through the fine net of the Police Council so often that there is now practically nothing left to go through.
It is a small group of concessions which the Home Office is unwilling to make, and I would not have troubled the House with it, as I would not have troubled the House with this illustration, except that it was brought here by the Home Office. If it is those that he wants to review, let us do so, but if it is anything more I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of suspicion now about what this comprehensive review means. Certainly it cannot bring in any other service. The Police Council deals with the police and not with any other body, and no comprehensive review of the pensions of other people can take place on the Police Council.

Mr. Cole: Would the same thing apply to other services?

Mr. Callaghan: I would be out of order if I were to pursue that. I say that that would not be a proper thing for the Police Council to do, whatever other body it may be proper for it to be based on. If the Government wished to have a comprehensive review of all public service pensions, they would do it in some other way. It would not be the Home Secretary in charge of that, it would be the Treasury, so I take it that that is not in his mind.
But as this question has been raised, it will be helpful, especially as there is a Police Council meeting on Wednesday, at which the subject will come up again, if the right hon. Gentleman could assist those attending the Council by telling us whether he wants a comprehensive review of the whole structure, or whether he is thinking merely of the fringe benefits. If he is thinking of the former, he will not get it with the consent of all those concerned. If he is thinking of the latter, he will get it and there will be no difficulty in carrying out negotiations on the limited basis of negotiating in respect of the fringe benefits on which there are minor differences, but the major structure should remain unchanged.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I had hoped to be able to express gratitude for all the speeches that had been made this evening, but I cannot do so in relation to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am seeking agreement, and it occurred to me from the tone of his speech that he was seeking disagreement even before he had heard any proposals.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and my two hon. Friends, not so much for what they said about me, though I am grateful for that, as for what they said about the esteem in which the police are held by the House. It cannot be too often put on record, because there are many critics and cynical attackers of the police elsewhere, that this House believes in the police and is prepared to give them firm and unwavering support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) asked a rather complicated question, of which he had not given me notice, but I can assure him that all those who have studied this—the draftsmen, the Police Federation, and the Police Council—have all been satisfied with this wording. It is, as he perceived, in the new regulation which we are seeking to make. Regulation 12A (3), which says:
A widow to whom this Regulation applies whose husband dies on or after 1st August 1964 shall be entitled to a gratuity, as hereinafter provided, in addition to a widow's special pension.
As I think he perceived, one can find what a widow's special pension is by referring back to Regulation 12 of the 1962 Regulations.
It would not be in order for me to say anything about pensions in other services outside the police, but, as regards the police pensions, I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East that if he believes that there is something sinister, or Machiavellian, in my proposals, it would greatly help if he would eliminate anything of that sort from his mind, and seek to eliminate it from the minds of those whom he serves.
My proposal is for a revision that would be completely without commitment on either side. It would be open


to all suggestions, whether from the Staff Side or the Official Side. I can give the hon. Member one example, which, I hope, he will pass on. It might well seem desirable to provide for lump sums on retirement, which are, to the best of my knowledge, almost common form in other pension schemes nowadays, but are not included in the police pension scheme. That is the sort of thing that should be looked at. I do not know whether the hon. Member calls that a fringe benefit or part of the basic structure. But this is not a firm proposal which I am putting up; it is one of the possibilities which the kind of review that I am advocating might bring up.
During the course of that review there are a number of detailed anomalies that might be ironed out. It could not lead to a revision of the basic structure of the police pension scheme without the agreement of the Council as a whole. There is no danger of the Official Side being able to slip through something of a Machiavellian nature and demand that the Staff Side should accept it.
Surely, for the kind of reasons that I have given tonight, it would be desirable that we should look at all these matters without commitment, to see whether we can jointly improve the system. I will not pursue the matter further now. I hope that I have given the hon. Member a clear answer, which will be helpful when the Police Council meets. Mean-which, I am grateful to the House for the way in which it has accepted this change which is made in the amending Regulations.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I would not like the House to think that I am unreasonable about this, because I am not. The plain truth is—and it is fair to the Police Council to say this to the House—that the Home Secretary has said nothing tonight that has not been

said before. All this has been gone through. The proposal for a lump sum payment has been examined for two years at least. I know of nothing that the Official Side is not entitled to raise, if it wishes to do so. It is entitled to put items on the agenda. The Staff Side puts its items on the agenda, and both sides discuss them.
I say to the Home Secretary, with the utmost friendliness, that he is so clumsy about this. If he did not have in mind the idea of a review of the basic structure he should have made this clear at the beginning. It has been talked about for three or four months. On behalf of the Staff Side, I gave an indication of what was in its mind, concerning the attitude of mind of the Home Office in respect of police pensions. Its suspicions were not fostered by me, but they were represented by me.
The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to remove those suspicions tonight. I shall convey to the Council what he said. There are certain fringe benefits which might be looked at again. I will convey that point to the Council and hope that it will consider the matter in that light. I escaped the thanks of the right hon. Gentleman for my first speech, and I must bear it with such fortitude as I can muster.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1964. a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Diss [copy laid before the House 15th July) approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Orders of the Day — SHIPPING CONTRACTS AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 2.—(DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY FOREIGN COURTS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 4, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of this section any request or demand for the supply of a document or information which, pursuant to the requirement of any court, tribunal or authority of a foreign country, is addressed to a person in the United Kingdom shall be treated as a requirement to produce or furnish that document or information to that court, tribunal or authority, and directions under this section may be given accordingly for prohibiting compliance therewith.

12 m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that Clause 2 of the Bill empowers one of the Ministers named in the Clause to prohibit, in certain circumstances, the furnishing of documents or information in response to a demand from a foreign power or authority.
This Amendment extends the protection thus given, to cover demands which might be imposed indirectly. For example, an American court or agency might order a parent company in America to obtain a document located in England from its British subsidiary. The Amendment will allow the appropriate Minister to make compliance by the subsidiary company illegal in the same way that he could have done had the demand come direct from the foreign authority. Equally, the Amendment will cover the case where, in similar circumstances, a foreign subsidiary company makes a similar request to its British parent company, or where the request is passed from one company to another, both of whom may be subsidiaries of a parent company in another country.
Without this Amendment a British company might feel obliged to comply with such requests in order to shield its associates from the penal consequences of not supplying the information which they had been ordered to produce. If,

however, a foreign company is able to plead that its British associate could not lawfully have passed on the information, we think it reasonable to hope that such a plea would be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(CHARGES IN, AND TOUTING FOR, REFRESHMENT HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 21, leave out
during the hours of late opening".

12.3 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was moved in Committee in the House of Lords by the noble Lady, Baroness Summerskill, and accepted on behalf of the Government as an improvement to the Bill and one which would strengthen the hands of the police.
Its effect is that instead of being limited to the period from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. during which a refreshment house is open by virtue of its licence, the prohibition on touting in cases where it is applied by the local authority will operate at all hours of the day.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Title

Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, in line 1, postponed till after consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Mr. Partridge.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNCIL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 7, leave out "nine" and insert "four".

12.5 a.m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took the five Amendments next following.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Partridge: These Amendments are consequential on the deletion already made in the first paragraph of Schedule 1 in Standing Committee. The original intention was that the Hairdressing Council should consist of nine persons appointed by the employers' organisations, nine persons appointed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and nine Ministerial nominees, of whom five were to be nominees of the Home Secretary. The Ministerial appointments were intended to provide independent members not directly connected with the trade.
As a result of Amendments made in Committee there are now to be no official nominees, and that raises the problem of how independent experts are to be attached to the Council. The first need is met by providing for a direct appointment to the Council by each of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians of London. These bodies have been approached, and have agreed so to do. Five other persons of experience and reputation in the fields of industry, commerce, administration, finance or law are to be appointed by the employer and trade union elements on the Council. This gives a total of seven independent members.
To achieve the second object, the employers' organisations and the trade union are each to appoint four members, instead of the nine originally proposed when the Government were being called upon to appoint a further nine. The full composition of the Council will, therefore, consist of 15 persons, of whom eight will be trade representatives equally divided between the two sides of the industry, and seven will be independent members.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CHILD-CARE OFFICERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House the apprehensions that the present shortage of child-care officers is bringing the children's service near to breakdown in many areas. This is not a local problem. It confronts local authorities throughout the country. In Manchester, despite the most active endeavours by the local authority, only 16 out of 32 established posts are filled. In Wiltshire, with only 50 per cent. of the establishment filled, the position is deteriorating as overburdened officers unable to cope with the weight of work resign from the impossible stress of full-time work and opt for part-time work only. In Wales, there are counties like Denbighshire where there has not been a fully qualified child-care officer in the employ of the county for more than a decade. One large north-eastern authority has been advertising 11 vacancies for months and no qualified child-care officer has applied for any of those posts.
The result of this shortage, when, for every three child-care officers needed, not two exist, is grim overwork. Many child-care officers are trying to deal with caseloads of 100 to 115, and all that they can do by working long hours cannot enable them to deal adequately with those under their care. Always, they are burdened by a consciousness of pressure and a shortage of time. Officers are dealing with emergency work which is not of an emergency nature in essence, but it has become so because normal work is left until it assumes emergency proportions.
In this situation of strain, is it any wonder that more than 100 child-care officers last year gave up child care altogether? Undoubtedly, the community is paying a heavy price for the total failure of the Government to build up a structured pattern of professional training for case workers sufficient to meet the needs of children in difficulty.
White Papers abound telling us sorry tales of criminal statistics. Royal Commissions and advisory boards multiply,


while the Government, in the meantime building better gaols, more approved schools and more detention centres, charge them with finding a solution for the growth of crime. Yet everyone but the most wilfully purblind knows full well that a high proportion of existing delinquency and crime has its roots in the problem family, the deserted family and the fatherless family, where children are brought up lacking the certitude and direction which can be gained in more fortunate and confident homes.
The child-care officer, above all else, is the one who can stretch out a hand and save little ones born into these handicapped families. But to deal with these groups, often so refractory and exhausting, is tough, and the supportive work needed to be done can rarely be performed effectively by an over-burdened, harrassed and insufficiently trained amateur, however enthusiastic.
Eloquent moral exhortations from successive Conservative Home Secretaries, which sometimes ill become them, will do nothing to contain crime. If they were less prolix in their indignation at the alleged deterioration in moral standards and more active in providing training facilities to produce an adequate supply of skilled child-care officers, they would be doing something much more constructive.
A recent survey conducted by the Association of Children's Officers giving details of the number and qualifications of staff in local authority children's departments in England and Wales illustrates the seriousness of the present position. It shows that there is in the country an establishment for about 1,980 child-care officers. On 31st January, 1964, there were staff vacancies for no fewer than 237 child-care officers, some 12 per cent. of the total establishment. When it is remembered that there is a wide range in the establishment of different local authorities, even if they are similar in size, and that many of us feel that many local authorities try to manage with a less than adequate staff, it will be realised how serious is the staff situation.
Shortage of staff is a serious problem, but equally serious is the quality of the staff actually employed. Only 30 per cent., or about 535, of officers in the

service and in posts on 31st January, 1964, were fuly qualified. Most depressing of all was the position of new entrants to the profession. Of the 429 new staff employed by local authorities between 1st February, 1963, and 31st January, 1964, no fewer than 30 per cent. had no appropriate academic qualifications. In fact, only 30 per cent. were fully qualified.
Another depressing feature is the distribution of qualified officers throughout the country, a very high proportion choosing to work in the south-east of England. In Wales, for example, more than three out of every four employed child-care officers are unqualified. Wales has only 4 per cent. of the total qualified child-care officers in the country.
An estimate of future needs for child-care officers is not so difficult to make. What we do know is that there were increases in establishment of 413 from 31st July, 1962, to 31st January, 1964.
A considerable expansion is bound to follow the passing of last year's Children and Young Persons Act. The children's officers estimate a need for approximately 330 additional child-care officers during 1964–65. To this figure of 330 must be added a figure to cover wastage during the year. The figure for the year 1st February, 1963, to 31st January, 1964, was 240, so that a figure of at least this must be allowed for. It appears, therefore, that a figure of 570 child-care officers will be needed for the period 1964–65. If the needs of the voluntary organisations such as Dr. Barnado's Homes, and adoption societies and others are kept in mind, a figure of at least 600 must be accepted. Although it may be difficult to be certain that this figure of 600 will be an annual requirement, all the indications suggest that during the next few years the rate of expansion will not decrease.
When we compare the need of approximately 600 a year with 129 qualified new entrants who entered the service for the first time in the year to 31st January, 1964, we can see how utterly inadequate the training programme is. I want to ask the Government. first, do they accept the estimates of the professional organisations, and if they do not, why not? Indeed, if they discount them, what are the Government's estimates? Have they any? If


not, why not? Knowing the need and knowing the extra burden which the 1963 Act places on child-care officers, why have they not yet calculated the figures required? Is there any truth in what I regard as the calamitous suggestion that 300 a year is the Government's aim? Is this correct? Because if it is, it is clear that all that is being done is planning for shortage.
In another place, three months ago, we heard from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that expansion was a need recognised by the Government. The question which I put is: by how much? Will the Government tell us how much expansion, after three months at least in which they have recognised the need—and it seems a little belated to have recognised it only at that time. How much expansion is intended? For example, will the Government consider the possibility of new crash programmes which are clearly needed, such as the establishment of social work training colleges. In Wales, all we have is one small training course for social workers, for five or six people in Cardiff and a course for a similar handful to start in October in Swansea.
May we have an indication that the Government, as a minimum, would prompt the creation of facilities for the 17-monfh postgraduate training course for students who have taken their degree in subjects not necessarily related to social administration? Wales has an exceptionally high proportion of graduates, and such a course would be invaluable.
Finally, could not another look be given to the present maintenance procedures for student grants? One of the most fruitful potential fields for recruitment is the 21 to 25 year age range. If, when a graduate in this age group is making decisions about his future career, he finds that a decision to train to be a social worker means continual parental involvement, this may be more than enough to make him reject the idea. But we need men as well as women desperately to go into the child-care service and the grants and salaries should be available to attract them.
At this time there is great public interest and concern—much, alas, little more that prurient curiosity—in the

number of homosexuals in Britain. Boys growing up either in fatherless homes or an hermetically sealed female staffed children's home often have no opportunity to identify with grown-up men. Sometimes, as many a child-care officer has said, the only man the little child boy may have any relationship with is the milkman on his rounds. Such a little boy, engulfed in a feminine world, may so falter as never to find his masculine rôle.
This is the sort of reason why we have such a need for more men coming into the child-care service and I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will at least give some assurance about the future training courses so as to allay some of the widespread concern which is felt on the future of this service.

12.26 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has raised this debate tonight, because it has presented an opportunity for an expression of the anxieties we all feel about the future of the child-care services.
If I may for a moment strike a personal note, I could not but help feeling, as I listened to the hon. Member, that it is 25 years since I sat up waiting apprehensively for the result of my own examinations to become a welfare officer; and how my professors, eminent members of the party opposite, warned me that I was entering upon a career in which I should find few suitable openings and that there were no great hopes for my future.
Yet the fact is that there have been dramatic changes over this whole field. Even within the last 10 or 15 years we have all had to revise our estimates of the needs in this field because, more and more, we have come to a realisation of the importance of the preventive side of our work, not only in preventing delinquency, but also in strengthening many of the positive aspects of our society as a whole.
Of course, there is the charge of complacency, but I do not think that we are at all complacent. Indeed, ever since the inception of this service, we have


been concerned that there should be an adequate number of welfare officers able to do this work, and I hope that I shall be able to answer most of the questions which the hon. Member has put to me tonight. He will appreciate that there is the difficulty of time in a short debate of this sort, but if there is anything which I leave unanswered, I promise that I will write to him and try to give the best answers that I can.
First, I would like to put the whole thing into perspective for the benefit of hon. Members, and those people outside the House, who may not have a full appreciation of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend. I must remind them that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility for the staffing of these services.
The Children and Young Persons Act, 1948, placed the responsibility for the local authority child-care service on the councils of counties and county boroughs, a duty which they discharge through their children's committees and children's officers. Local authorities, therefore, and the voluntary organisations who perform extensive and valuable work in this field, are responsible for appointing their own staffs and for fixing the levels of establishments.
They are also responsible, of course, for determining, through the appropriate negotiating machinery, the salaries and conditions of service. It is true that the cost of the local authority child-care service is partly borne by the Exchequer by means of the general grant, but my right hon. Friend has no express powers in relation to the size of child-care establishments.
However, this is far from saying that he has no interest in this matter, or that we do not share the hon. Member's concern over this problem. Indeed, I should like to make it clear that we are anxious that the child-care service should be adequately staffed and we are deeply conscious of the problems that local authorities and voluntary organisations have to face. Perhaps I could mention three of these problems in particular.
Local authority children's departments have engaged in a wide range of work, and I think that it is the general experience that the work involved in deal-

ing with individual cases is getting more complex and more difficult. This applies not only to the work of the field staff, but also—and this is a point which does not always receive the attention which it merits—the work of the staff in the residential establishments for children. In view of the welcome rise in the proportion of children placed with foster parents, the proportion of the children remaining in residential care and who need special attention, is also increasing, so that the staffs of children's homes are having to become experts in handling children with complex personal problems of one kind or another.
The second problem, which primarily concerns child-care officers in the field, is the additional work arising from the operation of Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963—a provision which we all welcome. The purpose of this provision is to diminish the need for children to be received into care, and it is early days yet to know how this work is evolving in practice; although it is, however, clear that it will need an increase in the staffs of children's departments.
The third problem, as the hon. Member knows only too well, in this field, as in many others, is the wastage of staff. This is a problem in all other professions, too. I do not want to take up time in developing the point, but wastage is a major factor in the staff shortage. It is due partly to the large number of young women coming into the service who leave upon or soon after marriage. On the residential side, it is largely due to the conditions of service and the conditions of the job.
I turn now to what is being done to solve these problems. While my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility for staffing, he has a direct responsibility for training. As the hon. Member has said, it is upon the quality and the training of child-care officers that so much depends. In 1947, the Home Secretary of the day set up a non-statutory body known as the Central Training Council in Child Care, whose terms of reference were
to promote facilities for training in child care and to select persons for training".
As hon. Members know, the Council is under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Moncrieff. Its members are selected for


their experience in a wide range of work connected with children and the training of staff for social work generally.
The Council itself does not run training courses. These are run by the universities and other education establishments, usually after consultation with the Council and sometimes on the Council's initiative. The council usually advises on the contents of the course. Within the financial limits set by the Government—and the hon. Member will know that this is always the limiting factor—the Council offers assistance towards the cost of running the courses and to the students in training.
Both the Council and the Government are as aware as anybody else of the need, and the increasing need, for turning out trained staff. I know that the view is held—the hon. Member has expressed it forcibly tonight—that we are not increasing the programme fast enough. Before I comment on that, it is only fair to give the House figures to show what has been done and what has been planned for the immediate future.
As to child-care officers—that is, field workers—the number trained in the late 1950s was between 50 and 60 a year. In 1960, the number was 50. This figure has since been steadily increasing and the expected output for this year is nearly 190. The number expected to complete training in the next two years, for which firm plans have been made, are about 240 in 1965 and about 300 in 1966. That means that over the period from 1960–1966, there will have been a sixfold increase in the number of staff trained annually. I think that the hon. Member and everyone who has knowledge of the scarcity of people for this work will agree that this is a significant achievement.
Then, there are the staff who are being trained to work in residential establishments for children. The number trained in 1960 was 168. The figure has risen to an expected output for this year of 320 and under present plans it will be about 340 for each of the next two years. I should explain that all these figures include a certain proportion of staff who had already been serving in the child care service before undertaking training. The House will, I think, agree that this increase in traininig has been

substantial and shows the concern of both the Central Training Council and the Government to provide the child care services with suitably trained staff.
As to whether the programme has been adequate to keep pace with the demand, I should like to make two points. The first is to state that only in the last two or three years has the need for an even larger training programme been widely canvassed. We must be sufficiently careful and just not to judge past efforts by current opinions and by future needs and developments. The second and more important point is that the Government must see that there is a fair distribution of resources among the many and increasing demands which are made for training and further education of all kinds.
I recognise, of course, that any restriction or limitation must be discouraging to the hardworking authorities and staffs in this sphere. The Government must, however, take into account all the many deserving claims on their resources.
What of the future? Here I must return to what I said earlier about the Home Office not being responsible for the establishments of children's departments. A consequence of this is that we have not had records automatically available to us of local authorities' existing and estimated future staff establishments, nor have we thought it appropriate to invite local authorities to submit returns to us. But in view of representations made to my right hon. Friend we have discussed this with the local authority associations and the London County Council, which have agreed that since there has been a steep rise in the forecasts of training requirements we had better collect information from each local authority.
We are now in the process of collecting from local authorities information about their present staffing position and estimates of their staffing needs over the next few years. This procedure will be on a regular footing and will enable us to keep the situation under review. The initial survey is now under way and the results will be available soon. When they have been collated they will serve as a basis for assessing the size of the training programme which is needed, and the Government will have to decide, after taking all other claims into account, what resources


can be made available to undertake that programme. I shall not offer any opinion on what the final outcome of this exercise is likely to be, but I can promise that the review will be carried through as a matter of urgency.
I have dealt at some length with the question of training both because it is the sphere in which my right hon. Friend has direct responsibility and because, without question, it is one of the most important questions connected with the staffing of the child-care services. But it is only fair to say that these services never have been, and cannot for the foreseeable future hope to be, fully staffed by persons holding the recognised qualifications granted by the Central Training Council. I say this because it is a simple fact and because it puts the question of training into its proper perspective. We must pay due respect to the contribution which child care staff without formal Central Training Council qualifications make to the running of the service, and the service will continue to have need of these devoted officers.
Having dealt generally with the question of training, I should now like to say something about the position in Wales. Our information is that 24 per cent. of the child-care officers employed by local authorities in the principality—that is, 23 out of a total staff of 95—possess the professional qualifications awarded by the Central Training Council. This is below the national average for England and Wales, which is 30 per cent., but it is higher than in certain other parts of the country. I should like to say at this stage that the information before my right hon. Friend indicates that the standard of child-care services in Wales compares well with that in the rest of the country.
At present, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is one course in Wales approved by the Central Training Council where child-care officers can train; that is the applied social studies course, run by the University College of Cardiff. This caters also for probation officers and can take up to six child-care officer students. In addition, in October of this year a second course is due to open at the University College of Swansea, which will take a further six students. It does not, of course, follow that all the students trained on these courses will take up posts in Wales, since students are free to take employment wherever they choose; but this second course should make a significant contribution to improving the position in the principality.
I cannot make any forecasts about the future since it is not practicable for the Central Training Council to work on a principle of maintaining strict parity between different regions in any expanded training programme, but I can promise that the need of Wales will be kept very much in mind.
In conclusion, I should like to put on record once again the debt of appreciation which the Government and the House and the country generally owes to the staff of the child-care services. I hope I have been able to show that the Government are very conscious of the need to ensure an appropriate level of training, in a field where there is great competition for available resources. I can assure the House that the claims of the child-care services for the fair share of those resources will certainly neither be overlooked nor under-rated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.